identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
72738785FFA7FFC2B987A812FEB110FF.text	72738785FFA7FFC2B987A812FEB110FF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neocricetodon magnus (Fahlbusch 1969)	<div><p>Neocricetodon magnus (Fahlbusch, 1969) (Fig. 3 A-F)</p> <p>Kowalskia magna Fahlbusch, 1969: 112, pl. 9, fig. 6, pl. 10, figs 1, 2, pl.17, figs 1-6. — Pradel 1988: 252, pl. 9, figs 8-13.</p> <p>Rotundomys (Kowalskia) magna – Janossy 1972: 34, pl. 2, figs 4, 5.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Podlesice, Poland.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Two fragmented M1, two M3, four m1, seven m2, three m3. See further details in Appendix 1.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — Table 1.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M1</p> <p>The two available specimens are fragmented, lacking the posterior part. Anterocone split into two tubercles; the lingual anterolophule is present whereas the labial one is absent; in one specimen a low labial spur of the anterolophule develops in the anterosinus; anterior protoloph present; mesoloph partially preserved in one specimen in which is also visible a mesostyle.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>Labial anterolophule better developed than the lingual one; double protolophule; posterior part of the tooth strongly reduced: the posterior part is composed by a complex system of enamel crests and swellings in which hypocone and metacone are difficult to identify.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>A wide and stout anteroconid borders the entire anterior margin developing in sharp and flat ridges on the labial and lingual sides; in two specimens, a shallow incision in the distal side of the anteroconid wall is suggestive of an incomplete subdivision; anterolophulid double in three specimens and single and labial in one specimen; in two specimens the anterolophulids run parallel to each other whereas in the other one they are strongly divergent; mesolophid always present; well-developed and ending in a mesostylid.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>The lingual anterolophulid is strongly reduced; labial anterolophulid well-developed; well-developed mesolophid ending into a strong mesostylid.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>Large and triangular; anterolophulids well-developed both on the labial and lingual sides; well-developed mesolophid ending into a strong mesostylid.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cricetine remains from MCC cannot be assigned to the genus Apocricetus Freudenthal, Mein &amp; Martín-Suárez, 1998 because of the presence of strong mesolophs and mesolophids. The size of Pseudocricetus polgardiensis (Freudenthal &amp; Kordos, 1989) from the Late Miocene of Polgardi (Hungary) is slightly smaller than that of Neocricetodon magnus from MCC even if the size ranges can partially overlap, while that of the sympatric Pseudocricetus kormosi (Schaub, 1930) is very similar (Freudenthal &amp; Kordos 1989; Freudenthal et al. 1998). The material from MCC differs from P. polgardiensis in having more developed mesolophs and mesolophids especially in the m2 and m3, as well as in the undivided anteroconid. P. kormosi differs from the specimens from MCC in the strong reduction of mesolophs and mesolophids, which are nearly absent in this species, and in the strong subdivision of the anteroconid in the m1s.</p> <p>The studied material is characterized by the presence of long and strong mesolophs and mesolophids and unified or slightly subdivided anteroconid wall in the m1s. These features are distinctive of the Eurasian Neogene genera Neocricetodon Schaub, 1934 and Kowalskia Fahlbusch, 1969 (Daxner-Höck 1995; Daxner-Höck et al. 1996; Freudenthal et al. 1998). The taxonomic status of these two genera has been the subject of a complex discussion. Some authors (Freudenthal et al. 1998) considered Kowalskia as a junior synonym of Neocricetodon, while others (Daxner-Höck et al. 1996) claimed that the material of the Late Miocene Neocricetodon grangeri (Young, 1927), the type species of the genus Neocricetodon, is rather scarce and does not provide substantial evidence about the possible separation of Neocricetodon and Kowalskia, thus preferring to use the better defined Kowalskia. More recently, de Bruijn et al. (2012) examined some pictures of unpublished material assigned to N. grangeri and after comparisons with Kowalskia polonica Fahlbusch, 1969, the type species of Kowalskia, considered this latter genus as a junior synonym of Neocricetodon (in agreement with Freudenthal et al. 1998). Following this opinion, Kowalskia is considered herein a junior synonym of Neocricetodon.</p> <p>Large-sized species of the genus Neocricetodon, as that recognized at MCC, are relatively uncommon in the Neogene of Europe. Neocricetodon lavocati (Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965) from the Late Miocene of Lissieu, Neocricetodon browni (Daxner- Höck, 1992) from Maramena (Miocene/Pliocene boundary of Greece) (Daxner-Höck 1992; 1995), the Late Miocene Neocricetodon nestori (Engesser, 1989) from Baccinello V3 and Neocricetodon skofleki (Kordos, 1987) from Tardosbanya display a smaller size. Neocricetodon fahlbuschi (Bachmayer &amp;Wilson, 1970) from the Late Miocene of Austria (see also Freudenthal et al. 1998) is also smaller and only the size ranges of the M3 partially overlap with those of Neocricetodon from MCC. Direct comparisons with material referred to N. lavocati from Lissieu showed that it exhibits less developed mesolophids in the m3. From a morphological point of view, N. browni and N. nestori differ from the material of MCC in having a clearly subdivided anteroconid. N. skofleki differs from the material from MCC for a wider anterosinusid in the m2 and the presence of a double anteroloph in the M1. With respect to N. fahlbuschi, the studied material differs mainly in the strong reduction of the M3, less divided anterocones in M1 and the presence of a broader, stouter and almost undivided anteroconid in the m1s. Other slight differences include the presence of a double anterolophule, and the frequent absence of the anterior protoloph in the M1 of N. fahlbuschi and the overall better developed mesoloph(id)s of the molars from MCC in which they always reach the dental margins.</p> <p>Neocricetodon seseae Aguilar, Calvet &amp; Michaux, 1995 from the Late Miocene localities of Castelnou 1, Crevillente 14 and 22, Cucuron and Lissieu (see Freudenthal et al. 1998), even if slightly smaller, approaches the size of the cricetine material from MCC. However, this species shows some unique features, including the less developed mesolophids, the higher degree of subdivision of the anteroconid and the almost unreduced M3.</p> <p>Neocricetodon polonicus (Fahlbusch, 1969) known from some Pliocene localities of Central Europe (Fahlbusch 1969; Pradel 1988) and Neocricetodon intermedius (Fejfar, 1970) from the Pliocene of Ivanovce and Vue-des-Alpes (Bolliger et al. 1993) have rather smaller molars, even though they display very similar morphological characters (e.g., long and strong mesolophids and mesolophs, and undivided, wide and stout anteroconid). The size of Neocricetodon magnus Fahlbusch, 1969 from the type locality of Podlesice (Fahlbusch 1969; Pradel 1988) and Osztramos 1 (Janossy 1972) fit very well with that of the specimens from MCC except for the length of M3, which is highly variable in the material from Podlesice. Moreover, the morphological features of N. magnus are consistent with those of the material from MCC, especially as far as concerns the long and strong mesolophids and mesolophs, the unified or slightly subdivided anteroconids in the m1s, and the reduction of the anterosinusids of the m2. Two M3 from Podlesice, MF/823/16 figured in Fahlbusch (1969: taf. XVI/5) and MF/1684 figured in Pradel (1988: pl. IX/10) display a strong reduction of the posterior part being remarkably similar to the M3 from MCC. However, some details are slightly different; one of four available m1 from MCC has a single anterolophulid, while a double anterolophulid generally occurs in N. magnus from Podlesice; the measurements of the M3 from Podlesice display a higher variability even if this is probably due to the scarce sample of MCC (two M3) These differences should not be regarded as significant considering the nearly unknown intraspecific variability of N. magnus. Moreover, a detailed morphological description of the dental elements was exclusively provided for the scarce material analyzed by Fahlbusch (1969), and very little is known about the morphological features of the Osztramos 1 assemblage.</p> <p>In summary, the only known species of the genus Neocricetodon exhibiting a large size, well-developed mesolophids and mesolophs, broad, wall-like, undivided anteroconids, and reduction of the posterior portion of the M3 is Neocricetodon magnus. The few morphological differences, such as the presence of a single labial branch of the anterolophulid in one (of the four available) m1 can be related to the slightly older age of the material from MCC, even considering that this feature is more common in some Miocene species such as N.fahlbuschi (Bachmayer &amp; Wilson 1970).</p> <p>To date, N. magnus has been exclusively reported from the Pliocene deposits of Central Europe. The material from MCC indicates that this large cricetine was present at least at the end of the Messinian in southern Europe. This is the second record of the genus Neocricetodon in the Italian Peninsula, the first one being that of N. nestori in the slightly older locality of Baccinello V3 (Engesser 1989; Rook et al. 2011). The two species do not appear to be closely related (Engesser 1989).</p> <p>According to Daxner-Höck (1995), N. magnus is in some ways related to N. schaubi (MN11), N. skofleki (MN11-MN12), N. browni (MN13), N. polonicus (MN14), and N. intermedia (MN15). However, as already pointed out by Fahlbusch (1969) and Fejfar (1970), the closest relatives of N. magnus should be N. polonicus and N. intermedius with which it shares a very similar morphology, mostly differing in its larger size.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFA7FFC2B987A812FEB110FF	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFABFFC5BBFDAEEFFD2911D8.text	72738785FFABFFC5BBFDAEEFFD2911D8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paraethomys meini (Michaux 1969)	<div><p>Paraethomys meini (Michaux, 1969) (Fig. 4 A-F)</p> <p>Anthracomys meini Michaux, 1969: 14, pl. 2, figs 6-9.</p> <p>Occitanomys anomalus de Bruijn, Dawson &amp; Mein, 1970: 548, pl. 2, figs 7-12.</p> <p>Paraethomys miocaenicus Jaeger, Michaux &amp; Thaler, 1975: 1674, pl. 1, figs 1-12.</p> <p>Paraethomys anomalus – De Giuli 1989: 204, pl. 2, figs 3-14.</p> <p>Paraethomys cf. anomalus – Cavallo et al. 1993: 15, fig. 7.</p> <p>Paraethomys meini – Minwer-Barakat et al. 2009a: 98, fig. 2; 2009b: 860, fig. 7. (cum syn.). — Colombero et al. 2013: 116, fig. 4A-C, J-L.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Sète, France.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Nine maxillary fragments bearing M1 and M2; two maxillary fragments bearing M2 and M3; a single mandibular fragment bearing m2 and m3; 32 isolated M1; 26 isolated M2; 20 isolated M3; 30 isolated m1; 31 isolated m2; 13 isolated m3. See Appendix 1 for further details.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — Table 2.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION.</p> <p>M1</p> <p>t1 and t3 exhibit a posterior spur directed to the t5; t3 smaller than t1; well developed t6 protruding from the labial margin; t4-t5-t6-t9-t8 form a partially developed stephanodont crest since t4 and t8 are not connected; t9 reduced; t12 very poorly developed.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>t5 and t8 very well developed; t3 much smaller than t1; t9 absent or strongly reduced; t12 absent.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>t3 absent or represented by a small bulge arising on the enamel; t8 usually isolated; a feeble connection with t4 can occasionally occur; three roots.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>tma present in 15% of specimens as a tiny cusplet formed by a slight swelling of the enamel; c1 always present; labial cingulum with one or two additional cusplets.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Stout anterolabial cuspid; c1 always present; a second cusplet develops occasionally close to the protoconid.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>An accessory cusplet rarely occurs on the labial side; posterior complex isolated or labially connected to the anterior one.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The studied material can be assigned to the genus Paraethomys Petter, 1968 primarily due to the mod- erately stephanodont molars and the absence or the presence of reduced t 9 in M1 and M2. The size of the specimens of Paraethomys from MCC fits well with the range of Paraethomys meini (Michaux, 1969) from the type locality of Sète (Michaux 1969), being also consistent with those of many Late Turolian and Ruscinian European localities, including Purcal 4, 7, 13, Calicasas 3B, La Mina 4 from the Granada Basin (García-Alix et al. 2008b), Negratín-1 and Rambla de Chimeneas 3 (Minwer- Barakat et al. 2009a, 2009b), Mont-Hélène (Aguilar et al. 1991), Villalba Alta Río, Peralejos E, Orrios, Celadas 9 and La Gloria 4 from the Teruel Basin (Adrover et al. 1988, 1993a) and Verduno (Colombero et al. 2013). The morphology of the teeth of P. meini from MCC is very similar to that of the teeth from Sète, even if the posterior spurs of the available M1 are MCC usually slightly more developed. Moreover, material referred to P. meini from other localities, particularly La Dehesa 4A and 4B (García-Alix et al. 2008b), is extremely similar to that from MCC. Therefore, the mate- rial from MCC is referred herein to Paraethomys meini. Direct comparative analysis carried out on Paraethomys teeth from the localities of Amama 2 and Albacete housed in the UCBL collections and previously assigned to Paraethomys miocaenicus Jaeger, Michaux &amp; Thaler, 1975 revealed only small differences, mostly related to the lesser development of the spurs on the t3, and the lower t6-t9 connections in the M1 from those localities. The material of P. meini from Brisighella (De Giuli 1989) and Maritsa (de Bruijn et al. 1970), formerly assigned to Paraethomys anomalus (de Bruijn, Dawson &amp; Mein, 1970) shows remarkable affinities with the material from MCC, especially in the development of the spurs on the t3 of the M1, in the close position of the t1 with the t5, as well as in the number of cusplets on the labial cingulum (generally two) of the m1. Thus, there is no relevant argument to support a well-defined distinction between these assemblages and P. meini. Therefore, as already suggested by several authors (van de Weerd 1976; Montenat &amp; de Bruijn 1976; García-Alix et al. 2008b; Minwer-Barakat et al. 2009a, b), it is reasonable to conclude that P. miocaenicus and P. anomalus are junior synonyms of P. meini. On the contrary, a separate status is maintained for Paraethomys abaigari Adrover, Mein &amp; Moissenet, 1988, a Ruscinian species rarely reported from Spain, since it differs from P. meini in having a larger size and more developed spurs on the t3 of M1.</p> <p>The earliest European record of P.meini is reported from Spain, thereby suggesting that this species entered Europe from North-Western Africa at the end of the Turolian (Agustí &amp; Llenas 1996; van Dam et al. 2001; Agustí et al. 2006a). At the beginning of the Ruscinian, its geographical range broadened to the Eastern sector of the Mediterranean, as testified by the Maritsa record (de Bruijn et al. 1970).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFABFFC5BBFDAEEFFD2911D8	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFACFFC7BBE4A930FBDF1099.text	72738785FFACFFC7BBE4A930FBDF1099.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Occitanomys brailloni Michaux 1969	<div><p>Occitanomys brailloni Michaux, 1969 (Fig. 4 G-L)</p> <p>Occitanomys brailloni Michaux, 1969: 8, pl. 1, figs 6-11. — van de Weerd 1979: 132, pl. 1, figs 3-9. — de Bruijn 1989: 191. — Vasileiadou et al. 2003: 553, fig. 4I, J. — Minwer-Barakat et al. 2005: 434, fig. 3H. — Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009: 33, pl. 8, figs 1-7, pl. 9, figs 1-11.</p> <p>Hansdebruijnia sp. – Angelone et al. 2011: 99, fig. 6 (11).</p> <p>aff. Huerzelerimys – Angelone et al. 2011: 99, fig. 6 (13).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Layna, Spain.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Two maxillary fragments bearing M1 and M2; one maxillary fragment bearing M2 and M3; two mandibular fragments bearing m1, m2 and m3; two mandibular fragments bearing m1 and m2; 79 isolated M1; 79 isolated M2; 26 isolated M3; 64 isolated m1; 61 isolated m2; 31 isolated m3. See Appendix 1 for further details.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — Table 3.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M1</p> <p>t1bis present; t1 very close to t5; t3 exhibits a posterior spur that touches the base of the t5 or t5-t6</p> <p>connection in 35% of the specimens; labial tubercles (t3-t6-t9) aligned, forming a straight labial margin; posterior tubercles (t4; t5; t6; t9; t8) connected in a stephanodont crest; t4-t8 connection low or absent; t12 weakly developed.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>Ovoid shape; t1 close to t5, t3 small; t1bis rarely present, posterior tubercles (t4; t5; t6; t9; t8) connected in a stephanodont crest; t12 absent or very poorly developed.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>t1 connected to t5; t3 generally absent even if a small swelling of the enamel occurs in few specimens; t8 isolated or weakly connected to t6.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>A low longitudinal spur develops from the entoconidhypoconid complex, barely reaching the base of the protoconid-metaconid complex without constituting a complete crest (75% of the specimens) or remaining free (25%); the labial cingulum bears a c1 and an additional cusplet between protoconid and anteroconid.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Well-developed anterolabial cuspid; a low longitudinal spur is present but it does not form a complete crest; labial cingulum departs from c1 and reaches a cusplet near the protoconid.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>The anterolabial cuspid is a small swelling of the enamel; posterior complex transversally elongated and isolated from the protoconid-metaconid complex.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The material described herein can be referred to the genus Occitanomys Michaux, 1969 because of its moderately developed longitudinal connections between the tubercles of lower and upper molars, a less pronounced stephanodonty than Stephanomys Schaub, 1938 and Castillomys Michaux, 1969 and the position of t1 close to t5 (Michaux 1969). In addition, Stephanomys usually displays higher- crowned teeth with better developed longitudinal connections, the tubercles of upper molars are more pointed than in Occitanomys in which, on the contrary, the tubercles are more rounded and the overall aspect is more bunodont. Moreover, in the M1 of Stephanomys the t6 is more voluminous, usually protruding over the labial outline of the tooth, whereas in the specimens from MCC the t6 is always well aligned with t3 and t9, forming a straight labial border. However, few upper molars of Stephanomys ramblensis van de Weerd, 1976 from some Messinian localities of the Teruel Basin (van de Weerd 1976; Adrover et al. 1993a) and the Granada Basin (García-Alix et al. 2008b) including Valdecebro 3, Villastar and Purcal 23 roughly resemble those from MCC in displaying less developed t3-t5 connections in some M1 and t1-t5 connections in some M2. Nonetheless the lower molars of this species clearly differ from the studied material in the significantly more developed longitudinal connections that are present even in the m3. Moreover, even if the size ranges partially overlap, the mean-size of the molars of S. ramblensis is slightly larger than that of Occitanomys brailloni from MCC.</p> <p>The size of the molars of Occitanomys from MCC falls in the range of Occitanomys brailloni Michaux, 1969 from some Pliocene localities of western and eastern Europe including Layna, Nîmes (Michaux 1969), Kardia, Ptolemais 1 and 3 (van de Weerd 1979) and Tollo de Chiclana-1B (Minwer-Barakat et al. 2005). The measurements are also very similar to those of O. brailloni from Vorio 1 and Vorio 2 (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009), even though the mean size of the M2 is slightly larger in MCC. However, the size variability of M2 is poorly known for this species. Comparisons with material referred to O. brailloni from Layna housed at the IVAU and from the UCBL collections revealed a very similar morphology of the molars that fall in the range of variation of the type assemblage. Slight differences can be found in the M1 since the specimens from MCC display less frequent longitudinal connections. In particular, in the examined M1 from Layna the t3- t5 connection is present in 60% of the specimens whereas this connection only appears in 35% of the specimens from MCC. In our opinion these differences are not significant and can be related to the older age of the assemblages from MCC since the longitudinal connections seem to become more frequent in younger assemblages such as that from Layna. Therefore, the material from MCC is referred herein to Occitanomys brailloni.</p> <p>Teeth of Occitanomys montheleni Aguilar, Calvet &amp; Michaux, 1986 reported in the Pliocene French localities of Mont Hélène and Serrat d’en Vaquer (Aguilar 1982; Aguilar et al. 1986) show a larger overall size; moreover, on the grounds of morphological comparisons with some specimens of O. montheleni, the posterior spurs of the t 3 in the M1 of O. brailloni are more developed and the m1 shows a more developed labial cingulum.</p> <p>Occitanomys adroveri (Thaler, 1966), a species occurring in Europe during the Late Miocene, differs from the studied material in displaying slender and less rounded cusps and much more developed t 12 in M1 and M2. In addition, the connections in the upper teeth, especially t3-t5 connections in M1, are less developed than those occurring in the studied material. Moreover, the measures of the teeth of this species are usually smaller than those of the studied material. According to Michaux (1969), O. adroveri and O. brailloni belong to the same lineage that, from the Miocene to the Pliocene, should be characterized by a general size increase of the teeth in addition to a volume-increase of the cusps and a reduction of the t12. Moreover, as observed in the type assemblage of O. brailloni from Layna, the longitudinal connections of the upper molars are slightly more developed in the younger species. The earliest record of O. brailloni is that of Rema Marmara, a Greek locality dating back to the MN12 (de Bruijn 1989). This species is also reported in other Greek localities with an age close to the Mio-Pliocene boundary, such as Silata (Va- sileiadou et al. 2003) and Kardia (van de Weerd 1979) and it appeared in France (Michaux 1969) and Spain (Michaux 1969; Minwer-Barakat et al. 2005) during the Pliocene. The record of MCC represents one of the oldest reports of this taxon documenting its presence in the central sectors of southern Europe at the end of the Miocene.</p> <p>In a previous cursory analysis of the fossil assemblage from MCC (Angelone et al. 2011), a small sample of Occitanomys brailloni was tentatively assigned to Hansdebruijna sp. Nonetheless, Hansdebruijna Storch &amp; Dahlmann, 1995 clearly differs in the more developed t12, poorly developed t1bis and a general smaller size. In the same paper, another very small sample of O. brailloni was tentatively attributed to aff. Huerzelerimys Mein, Martín-Suárez &amp; Agustí, 1993. This genus can be distinguished from Occitanomys by its lesser degree of stephanodonty, more developed t6 and t12, and less developed t1 bis. In summary, all these specimens previously assigned to other taxa are now referred to Occitanomys brailloni.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFACFFC7BBE4A930FBDF1099	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFAEFFDAB982AE6EFD2810DE.text	72738785FFAEFFDAB982AE6EFD2810DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Centralomys benericettii (De Giuli 1989)	<div><p>Centralomys benericettii (De Giuli, 1989) (Fig. 4 M-R)</p> <p>Castillomys (Centralomys) benericettii De Giuli, 1989: 204, pl. 3, figs 1-10.</p> <p>Centralomys benericettii – Martín-Suárez &amp; Mein 1991: 68, pl. 2, figs 12-17. — Abbazzi et al. 2008: 622, fig. 6E, F. — Colombero et al. 2013: 113, fig. 4D-F, M-O.</p> <p>Castillomys sp. – Cavallo et al. 1993: 17, fig. 8A.</p> <p>Centralomys cf. benericettii – Angelone et al. 2011: 98, fig. 14.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Brisighella 1, Italy.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2; one mandibular fragment bearing m1 and m2; 31 isolated M1; 26 isolated M2; four isolated M3; 35 isolated m1; 31 isolated m2; three isolated m3.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — Table 4.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M1</p> <p>t3-t6-t9 are aligned forming a straight labial margin; t1 bis always present; t1 connected to t5; the t3 exhibits a posterior spur reaching the base of t 5 in about 45% of the specimens; t4-t5-t6-t9-t8 form a stephanodont crest with low (or absent) t4-t8 connection; t12 strongly reduced.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>t1 bis always present, the t1 exhibits a posterior spur that reaches the base of t 5 in 65% of the specimens; t3 smaller than t1; t4-t5-t6-t9-t8 form a stephanodont crest with low (or absent) t4-t8 connection; t12 absent or very reduced; three or four (10%) roots</p> <p>M3</p> <p>Large t1; t3 absent; t4-t8 connection low, t6-t8 connection rare and low.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>A tiny tma is present in 30% of the specimens, a longitudinal spur connects the hypoconid-entoconid complex and the protoconid-metaconid complex in 33% of the specimens; posterior heel poorly developed; the labial cingulum departs from the c1 and reaches the anteroconid without contacting the protoconid.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>A longitudinal spur connects the hypoconid-entoconid complex with the protoconid-metaconid complex in 35% of the specimens; c1 small; it can merge with the hypoconid; labial cingulum low without accessory cusplets.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>Anterolabial cuspid formed by a slight swelling of the enamel; the posterior complex exhibits a very compressed and transversely elongated shape; it is slightly shifted on the lingual side</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The studied material belongs to a small stephanodont murid and is assigned to the genus Centralomys. As a matter of fact, the stephanodonty, the tendency to develop longitudinal connections between the tubercles of the molars (Schaub 1938), is not as well developed as in Castillomys Michaux, 1969, a genus that usually displays more developed longitudinal crests. Besides, the genus Centralomys differs also from Occitanomys Michaux, 1969, in which the longitudinal connections are less developed. Moreover, the presence of well-developed t1bis and t1-t5 connection in the M1 supports the ascription of the studied material to Centralomys. The measurements of Centralomys from MCC are nearly identical to those of Centralomys benericettii from the latest Miocene localities of Verduno (Colombero et al. 2013) and Brisighella 25 (Martín-Suárez&amp; Mein 1991). Direct comparison of the material from MCC with that from Brisighella 1 (type locality), Brisighella 25 (De Giuli 1989), and Verduno (Colombero et al. 2013) revealed a very similar morphology especially in the t3-t5 connections in the upper molars (which are generally absent and, when present, are low) and in the poorly developed longitudinal spurs in the lower molars, thereby justifying the assignment to the species Centralomys benericettii. Moreover, the material from MCC is characterized by M2 always bearing a t1 bis and, like in the assemblages from Brisighella and Verduno, the 30% of the available m1 exhibit a tiny tma. However, it should be noted that specimens with slightly more pronounced stephanodonty are more frequent at Brisighella 25 and Verduno than in MCC (Colombero et al. 2013). As far as concerns Verduno and MCC, such differences might be related to different palaeoecological conditions (Colombero et al. 2013; Colombero &amp; Pavia 2013).</p> <p>According to some authors (García-Alix et al. 2008b; Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009), C. benericettii should be placed within the genus Occitanomys. In particular, García-Alix et al. (2008b) considered C. benericettii as a junior synonym of Occitanomys alcalai Adrover, Mein &amp; Moissenet, 1988, a species present in the latest Miocene and Early Pliocene deposits of Spain,arguing that there is no morphological difference between these two forms. Actually, the measurements of O. alcalai are slightly larger than those of C. benericettii from Moncucco (Adrover et al. 1988; 1993a; García-Alix et al. 2008b; Minwer-Barakat et al. 2009a, b), as they only partially overlap. From a morphological point of view, in the M1 of O. alcalai the posterior spur of the t3 never reaches the t5 whereas in C. benericettii from MCC the contact is feeble but present in 45% of the M1. Other differences can be detected in the position of the t 1 in the M1 that is more anteriorly placed in O. alcalai, in the less developed longitudinal spurs of the m1, in the lower frequency of the tma in the m1 and in the rarity of the t1bis in the M 2 in O. alcalai. Moreover, in our opinion Centralomys cannot be considered a synonym of Occitanomys differing in particular in the presence of more developed longitudinal connections in both upper and lower molars.</p> <p>Castillomys magnus Sen, 1977 from the Pliocene of Çalta (see Sen 1977) was ascribed to the genus Centralomys by Martín-Suárez &amp; Mein (1991) mainly due to the presence of four roots (see Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009). In a successive paper, Sen (1998) confirmed the attribution of this species to the genus Centralomys pointing out the presence of four roots in the M2, weak longitudinal spurs in the lower molars and larger dimensions than Castillomys. Centralomys magnus differs from the studied material mainly in the larger average dimensions, even if the size ranges partially overlap, and in the presence of more developed longitudinal connections in the upper molars.</p> <p>We compared the specimens of C.benericettii from MCC with Castillomys gracilis van de Weerd, 1976, known in Spain between the Late Miocene and the Pliocene. This species is smaller than C. benericettii (van de Weerd 1976; García-Alix et al. 2008b) except for the population from La Gloria 4 (Adrover et al. 1993a) whose range overlaps with that of MCC. Morphologically, C. gracilis mainly differs in the most developed stephanodont crest in the upper molars, and in the absence or very rare occurrence of the t1bis in the M2. In addition, the tma is usually absent in the m1 of C. gracilis, being only sketched in a single specimen from Calicasas-4b (García-Alix et al. 2008b), the longitudinal spurs are more developed and the labial cingula are weaker.</p> <p>The record of C. benericettii is therefore restricted to the latest Messinian of Italy. Unfortunately, the very sparse record of continental vertebrates in the Italian Peninsula during the Miocene does not allow to define the evolutionary history of this taxon. Nonetheless, its occurrence in other localities such</p> <p>as Verduno (Colombero et al. 2013), Ciabót-Cagna (Cavallo et al. 1993), Borro Strolla (Abbazzi et al. 2008) and Brisighella (De Giuli 1989), indicates the existence of geographical connections between the northern and central parts of the Italian Peninsula, at least during the post-evaporitic phase of the MSC.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFAEFFDAB982AE6EFD2810DE	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFB3FFDCBBE4AE2EFEF51264.text	72738785FFB3FFDCBBE4AE2EFEF51264.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Micromys bendai van de Weerd 1979	<div><p>Micromys bendai van de Weerd, 1979 (Fig. 4 S-V)</p> <p>Micromys bendai van de Weerd, 1979: 144, pl. 3, figs 4, 5, 9, pl. 4, figs 6, 10. — Aguilar et al. 1989: 141, fig. 2. — Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009:41, pl. 12, figs 1-14.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Three mandibular fragments bearing m1 and m2; 13 isolated M1; five isolated M2; two isolated M3; ten isolated m1; four isolated m2.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — see Table 5.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M1</p> <p>t1 very close to or connected to t5;the t3 exhibits a short posterior spur; a small swelling of the enamel is present in most of the specimens on the anterior edge of the tooth between t1 and t2 or between t2 and t3;t3-t6-t9 are usually well aligned in an almost straight labial margin since the t6 can slightly protrude; t4-t5-t6-t7-t9-t8 are connected in a partially developed stephanodont crest since t7 is isolated from t4; t9 reduced; t12 moderately developed; five roots.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>t1 bis always present as an isolated cusplet or in a twinned complex formed by t1 and t1 bis t3 smaller than t1, usually connected to t5; t6 large, t9 reduced; t7 narrow or crest-like, isolated or weakly connected to t8; t12 present; four roots.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>t large; the t3 is a small swelling of the enamel; posterior complex connected to t6; t8 large and connected to the t6; three roots.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>Cuspids are pointed; small tma; longitudinal spur absent; a narrow labial cingulum departs from the c1 reaching the anteroconid without developing accessory cusplets; two main roots and one central rootlet.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Anterolabial cuspid moderately or poorly developed; longitudinal spur absent; narrow labial cingulum departing from a rather small c1; posterior heel oval and poorly developed; two roots.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The average size of Micromys from MCC is slightly larger than that of Micromys bendai from Ptolemais 1 (type population, van de Weerd 1979) and Péage de Roussillon (Aguilar et al. 1989). However, it falls in the size range of other assemblages from Greece such as Tomea Eksi 1 and 2, Prosilion-Mercurion (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009). Direct comparisons with molars of M. bendai from the type locality of Ptolemais 1did not reveal any relevant morphological difference suggesting that the material from MCC documented herein can be identified as Micromys bendai.</p> <p>Micromys steffensi van de Weerd, 1979, from the Early Pliocene of Greece (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009; Vasileiadou et al. 2012) displays larger dimensions even if the size range of m1 partially overlaps with that of M. bendai from MCC. Direct comparisons with specimens of M. steffensi from the type locality of Kardia, evidenced a great similarity with M. bendai. However, some small morphological differences can be detected, including the presence of a t1 bis in some M1 and the better development of the posterior spurs of t 3 in M1 of M. steffensi.</p> <p>The Late Miocene to Early Pliocene Micromys paricioi Mein, Moissenet &amp; Adrover, 1983, known in Spain (Mein et al. 1983; Adrover et al. 1988; García-Alix et al. 2008b) and Greece (Vasileiadou et al. 2003), can be easily distinguished from M. bendai by its smaller size, less-developed t7 and less frequent t1 bis in M2.</p> <p>Micromys cingulatus Storch &amp; Dahlmann, 1995 from Maramena (Miocene/Pliocene boundary of Greece) is similar in size to M. bendai from MCC, but it exhibits less roots in M1 (three roots plus an extremely rare incipient fourth central rootlet), a reduced t7 and lacks the t1 bis in M2 (Storch &amp; Dahlmann 1995).</p> <p>The molars of Micromys chalceus Storch, 1987 from the Late Miocene of Mongolia are evidently smaller than the material from MCC (Storch 1987). Moreover, the M1 lacks a t7 and it usually displays a minor number of roots in M1 since a fifth rootlet is visible only in 11 out of 108 specimens (Storch 1987). The earliest Pliocene Micromys kozaniensis van de Weerd, 1979, from Ptolemais 3 (van de Weerd 1979) and the Mongolian locality of Bilike (Qiu &amp; Storch 2000), differs from M. bendai in having narrower upper molars. From a morphological point of view, M. kozaniensis displays more posterior and slightly more developed t7 especially in the M2, more developed t12 and a deep inflexion in the outline of the M1 between t1 and t2 (van de Weerd 1979).</p> <p>M. bendai is reported in the latest Miocene-to- Early Pliocene of Greece (de Bruijn 1989; Koufos 2006; Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009) and the Early Pliocene of France (Aguilar et al. 1989).</p> <p>Micromys minutus (Pallas, 1771), the Eurasian Harvest Mouse,is the only extant species of the genus Micromys. Towards the end of the Miocene and during the Pliocene this genus exhibited a greater diversity with a higher number of species whose phylogenetic relationships are still not resolved. As a matter of fact, even if some species such as M. cingulatus from Greeceand M. chalceus from Asia exhibit less advanced morphological features (e.g., reduced number of roots, t7 absent or reduced), their presence in latest Miocene/earliest Pliocene localities of Europe and Asia indicates that they are contemporary to other species of this genus, namely M. bendai, M. paricioi, which, on the contrary, display more advanced morphological traits (e.g., higher number of roots and well developed t7) (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009). In summary, as already evidenced by some authors (van de Wteerd 1979; Storch &amp; Dahlmann 1995; Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009), it is extremely problematic to define a single lineage leading to the extant M. minutus. The evolutionary lineage M. chalceus – M. cingulatus – M. paricioi proposed by Storch &amp; Dahlmann (1995) seems to be not valid because M. paricioi appeared in Spain almost contemporaneously to the appearance in Greece of M. cingulatus (García-Alix et al. 2008b). Micromys steffensi is reported from the Pliocene deposits of the Ptolemais basin (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009) and shows a strong similarity with M. bendai, but it differs in its larger size and in some morphological details. In our opinion, M. steffensi probably should be regarded as an endemic form within the Ptolemais basin.</p> <p>Some other species appeared subsequently, such as Micromys caesaris Minwer-Barakat, García-Alix, Martín-Suárez &amp; Freudenthal, 2008, a form of small size reported in the Late Pliocene of the Guadix Basin, Spain (Minwer-Barakat et al. 2008) and Micromys praeminutus, known from some Pliocene localities of Europe (Michaux 1969; van de Weerd 1979).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFB3FFDCBBE4AE2EFEF51264	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFB5FFDEBBD5AB95FD281632.text	72738785FFB5FFDEBBD5AB95FD281632.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd 1976	<div><p>Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd, 1976 (Fig. 5 A-F)</p> <p>Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd, 1976: 84, pl. 3, figs 1-6. — Adrover et al. 1993a: 68, pl. 8, figs 4-9. — Sarica-Filoreau 2002: 19, figs 4, 5. — Minwer-Barakat et al. 2009b: 855, fig. 3. — Colombero et al. 2013: 118, fig. 4G, H, P, Q.</p> <p>Apodemus cf. gudrunae – De Giuli 1989: 208, pl. 3, figs 13-20. — Abbazzi et al. 2008: 622, fig. 6D.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Valdecebro 3, Spain.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Two maxillary fragments bearing M1 and M2; 68 isolated M1; 52 isolated M2; 20 isolated M3; 63 isolated m1; 35 isolated m2; 20 isolated m3. See Appendix 1 for further details.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — see Table 6.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M1</p> <p>t1 smaller than t2; the t3 exhibits a short posterior spur not reaching the t5; t4-t7 connection generally low or rarely absent; t7 absent in two specimens, narrow or crest-like in 20% of specimens and welldeveloped in the others; t12 well developed.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>t6-t9 connection absent in 15% of specimens and low in the others; t7 generally narrow or crest-like; t4-t7 connection absent in 30% of the specimens and low in the others; t12 absent in 15% of specimens.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>t3 absent in 30% of specimens and very small in the rest; t8-t9 complex bilobed or elliptic, connected to the t6, and, more rarely, to the t4.</p> <p>m1 tma always present and well developed; protoconidmetaconid complex connected with anteroconid complex through low connections mainly developed on the lingual side; hypoconid-entoconid complex isolated from the protoconid-metaconid complex; the c1 is well-developed; labial cingulum bearing two (50% of specimens); three (35% of specimens) or four (15% of specimens) cusplets.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Anterolabial cuspid well developed; hypoconidentoconid complex isolated from the protoconid-metaconid complexc1 well-developed; labial cingulum with one or two cusplets.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>Small anterolabaial cuspid formed by an enamel swelling; posterior complex rounded isolated; a small accessory cusplet can occur on the labial side.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The size of the large-sized species of Apodemus Kaup, 1829 from MCC are very similar to those of Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd, 1976 from many Late Miocene localities of Europe such as the type locality Valdecebro 3 (van de Weerd 1976), Masada del Valle 7, La Fontana, Arquillo 1 (van de Weerd 1976; Adrover et al. 1993a), Negratín 1(Minwer- Barakat et al. 2009b), Verduno (Colombero et al. 2013), and Asmasya (southwestern Anatolia, Sarica-Filoreau 2002). The described material from MCC is somewhat larger than that referred to A. cf. gudrunae from Pino Mojón and Barranco de Cañuelas (Sesé 1989) and slightly smaller than that of A. cf. gudrunae from Castelnou 3 (Aguilar et al. 1991). From a morphological point of view, the assemblage of A. gudrunae from MCC is very similar to that of the type locality of Valdecebro 3 except for some M1 that display a slightly more developed t7.</p> <p>With respect to Apodemus gorafensis Ruiz Bustos, Sesé, Dabrio, Peña &amp; Padial, 1984, reported in Europe since the latest Miocene and widely distributed during the Pliocene, the size of the teeth from MCC is smaller. Nevertheless, the measurements of A. gorafensis from Tomea Eksi 1 and 2 (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009) largely overlap those of the material from MCC. According to Sarica-Filoreau (2002), the main morphological difference between A. gudrunae and A. gorafensis is the development of the t1 of the M1. This tubercle is larger and stout in A. gorafensis than in A. gudrunae. Moreover, the larger size of the t1 produces a deep inflexion between t1 and t2 on the lingual side of the M1 of A. gorafensis. The t1 of the specimens from MCC is rather small and the inflexion is shallow. Moreover, compared with A. gorafensis from the type locality of Gorafe A, the specimens of Apodemus from MCC exhibit a slightly smaller t7 and less developed posterior spurs on t3. For these reasons, the material from MCC is referred to as A. gudrunae.</p> <p>The size of Apodemus atavus Heller, 1936, present in Europe since the latest Miocene and abundant in the Pliocene and the Pleistocene, is generally smaller than that of A. gudrunae. Moreover, in A. atavus the t7 is more frequently isolated and the t3 produces longer posterior spurs than in A. gudrunae. Some M1 of A. gudrunae from MCC exhibit an isolated t1. This morphological feature is relatively common among the species of the genus Rhagapodemus Kretzoi, 1959, widespread in Europe from the Late Miocene to the Pleistocene. Most of them, especially the Plio-Pleistocene species, namely Rhagapodemus hautimagnensis Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970, R. frequens Kretzoi, 1959, R. ballesioi Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970 and R. vandeweerdi de Bruijn &amp; van der Meulen, 1975 can be easily differentiated by the higher-crowned teeth. Moreover, in the M1 of Rhagapodemus, the t1 is always isolated and the t3 is more anteriorly placed, being very close to the t2. However, some specimens of Rhagapodemus primaevus (Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965) from the Late Miocene of Lissieu are similar to A. gudrunae especially in the low-crowned teeth and the shape and position of t3. Anyway, these two species exhibit some differences. In particular, the tubercles of the upper molars of R. primaevus are clearly vertical especially as regards the t1, whereas the tubercles of the lingual and labial sides of A. gudrunae are slightly inclined internally towards the longitudinal axis of the tooth. A. gudrunae is a common member of the MN13 vertebrate assemblages of the Mediterranean area, being regularly reported in a number of latest Miocene localities of Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Turkey (see NOW Database, Fortelius 2012).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFB5FFDEBBD5AB95FD281632	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFB7FFD1BB9DAF0AFD2910DE.text	72738785FFB7FFD1BB9DAF0AFD2910DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Apodemus atavus Heller 1936	<div><p>Apodemus atavus Heller, 1936</p> <p>(Fig. 5 G-L)</p> <p>Apodemus atavus Heller, 1936: 126, pl. 10, fig. 2. — Rietschel &amp; Storch 1974: 495, text figs 1-3, pls 1-4. — Fejfar &amp; Storch 1990: 147, figs 39-50. — Bolliger et al. 1993: 1045, figs 9, 10. — Marchetti et al. 2000:98, figs 6, 17-40, 42-48. — Martín-Suárez &amp; Mein 2004:116, fig. 1. — Minwer-Barakat et al. 2005: 432, fig. 3A-F. — García-Alix et al. 2008b: 192, fig. 3M-R. — Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009: 36, pl. 10, figs 5-12.</p> <p>Apodemus dominans Kretzoi, 1959: 243. — van de Weerd 1976: 87, pl. 8, figs 6-10; 1979: 138, pl. 2, figs 1-9. — Sen 1977: 105, pl. 3, figs 7-10 (cum syn.). — Aguilar et al. 1986: 131; 1991: 159. — Adrover et al. 1988: 108, figs 3, 1-7. — Sesé 1989: 193. — Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009: 37, pl. 10, figs 1-4.</p> <p>Apodemus cf. dominans – Adrover et al. 1988: 107, figs 2, 9, 10; 1993a: 69, pl. 8, figs 10-13. — Storch &amp; Dahlmann 1995: pl. 1, figs 8-14. — Mörs et al. 1998: 151, fig. 10. — Vasileiadou et al. 2012: 222, fig. 7d.</p> <p>Sylvaemus dominans – Popov 2004: 26, figs 28, 29.</p> <p>Apodemus cf. etruscus – Angelone et al. 2011: 99, figs 6, 12.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Gundersheim 4, Germany.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3; MCC4; MCC5; MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Twelve isolated M1; seven isolated M2; four isolated M3; 17 isolated m1; six isolated m2; three isolated m3.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — see Table 7.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M1</p> <p>The t1 is close to but isolated from the t5; t1-t2 connection low; t3 small; 75% of the specimens exhibit a posterior spur on the t3 not connecting to t5, 25% of specimens with very reduced or absent posterior spur; t7 always present; t4-t7 connection absent in 50% of the specimens; t7-t8 connection absent in 20% of the specimen; t12 well-developed.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>t1 completely isolated; the t7 is always present and isolated from the t4; t7-t8 connection absent in 25% of the specimens and low and weak in the others; t9 and t12 well-developed.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>t1 strong; the posterior complex, formed by the t8 and t9, is bilobed and elliptic occasionally connected with the t6 but isolated from the t4.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>tma always present and well-developed; posterior heel ovoid or rounded; c1 isolated from hypoconid; labial cingulum composed by several cusplets, generally two or three in addition to the c1.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Anterolabial cuspid well-developed and isolated; labial cingulum with two or three cusplets in addition to the c1.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>Anterolabial cuspid formed by a small swelling of the enamel; posterior complex rounded.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The medium-sized Apodemus present at MCC is smaller than A.gudrunae. From a morphological point of view A. atavus differs in the regular presence of a well-developed and frequently isolated t 7in both M1 and M2, more developed posterior spurs in the t3 of M1 and more developed t12.</p> <p>In a previous cursory analysis of the vertebrate assemblage of MCC(Angelone et al. 2011), some of the specimens referred herein to as A. atavus were erroneously identified to as Apodemus cf. etruscus Engesser, 1989, a species reported only from the Late Miocene of Baccinello V3, central Italy.This species differs from A.atavus in having a poorly developed t 7 in the upper molars and poorly developed spurs on the t3 of M1.</p> <p>The measurements of the specimens of the medium-sized Apodemus from MCC fit well with those of Apodemus atavus from the Pliocene localities of Gundersheim (type locality) (Fejfar &amp; Storch 1990), Saint Vallier (Martín-Suárez &amp; Mein 2004), La Dehesa 1 (García-Alix et al. 2008b), Komanos 1 (low and high), Tomea Eksi 3, Vorio 3a and Notio 1 (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009), and Willerhausen (Rietschel &amp; Storch 1974). They are slightly smaller than A. atavus from the latest Miocene and Pliocene localities of Purcal 7, 13, Calicasas 3, 3B, 4B, Cerro del Águila 1C (García-Alix et al. 2008b), Vue-des- Alpes (Bolliger et al. 1993) and the Pleistocene locality of Monte La Mesa (Marchetti et al. 2000). The size ranges of the specimens belonging to A. atavus from the Pliocene localities of Tollo de Chiclana (Tollo de Chiclana 1, 1B, 3 and 13) (Minwer-Barakat et al. 2005) are very similar to those of MCC, even if the maximum values of M1 and m1 are slightly higher. The morphology of the studied material is perfectly consistent with that of A. atavus from Gundersheim, in particular as far as regards the development of t7 (which is isolated in half of the available M1), low t1-t2 connection, presence of spurs on t3 of M1, and well-developed tma in the m1.</p> <p>The average size of Apodemus dominans Kretzoi, 1959, a species reported in Europe since the latest Miocene to the Pleistocene, from the type locality of Csarnota 2 (see van de Weerd 1976) is similar to that of MCC except for the M1 and m2 that are slightly larger than those from MCC.The size of A. dominans from the Pliocene localities of Escorihuela, Orrios (van de Weerd 1976), Castelnou 3 (Aguilar et al. 1991), Mont-Hélène (Aguilar et al. 1986, Concud Estación 3 and Concud Pueblo 3 (Adrover et al. 1988) is extremely similar to that of MCC, whereas that from Çalta (Sen 1977), Concud Estación 1 (Adrover et al. 1988), Hambach (Mörs et al. 1998), Muselievo (Popov 2004), Notio 1 (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009), the latest Miocene locality of Bacochas 1 (Sesé,1989), the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene of Maramena (Storch &amp; Dahlmann 1995); is only slightly larger. The lower molars of A. dominans from Celadas 9 and la Gloria 4 (Pliocene of Spain) (Adrover et al. 1993a) are slightly smaller than those from MCC. The separation between A. atavus and A. dominans based on morphology is highly problematic (Popov 2004; Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009; Vasileiadou et al. 2012). Fejfar &amp; Storch (1990) suggested that putative distinctive characters of A. dominans such as the presence of a strong t 12 in M1-2, three radiculated upper molars, and the presence of rearward c 1 in m1-2 should be regarded as symplesiomorphies. The size differences between A. dominans from the type locality of Csarnota 2 (van de Weerd 1976) and A. atavus from the type locality of Gundersheim-4 (Fejfar &amp; Storch 1990) are very slight; the mean values of M1 and m2 from Csarnota 2 are slightly larger than those from Gundersheim-4 but the size ranges partially overlap; the average sizes of M2, M3, m1, and m3 are very close and the size ranges are nearly identical. However, some authors (e.g., Storch &amp; Dahlmann 1995; Mörs et al. 1998; Popov 2004; Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009; Vasileiadou et al. 2012) assigned some specimens from Maramena and Kessani (Miocene/ Pliocene boundary of Greece), Hambach (Pliocene of Germany), Muselievo (Pliocene of Bulgaria), Notio 1 (Pliocene of Greece) to A. dominans and A. cf. dominans because of their slightly larger mean values with respect to those of A. atavus from Gundersheim-4. These slight size differences, however, should not be regarded as reliable criteria to discriminate between these two taxa. The size of other species of Apodemus such as Apodemus sylvaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) (see Cuenca Bescós et al. 1997; Renaud &amp; Michaux 2003, 2007) and Apodemus flavicollis (Melchior, 1834) (see Michaux &amp; Pasquier 1974; Capizzi &amp; Filippucci 2008) is characterized by considerable variation through time and space due to the interrelationship of multiple factors involving climatic and/or latitudinal variations and interspecific competition (Renaud &amp; Michaux 2007). Small differences in size between material from different regions and ages, as for example those reported for A. atavus and A. dominans, are to be expected and may be related to intraspecific variability. For these reasons, as already pointed out by several authors (Martín-Suárez &amp; Mein 2004; Minwer-Barakat et al. 2005; García-Alix et al. 2008b), it is not possible to conclusively separate A. atavus and A. dominans from both a morphological and biometrical point of view and we follow the suggestions of these authors in considering A. dominans a junior synonym of A. atavus. As a consequence, the material from MCC is referred to A. atavus.</p> <p>According to many authors (Rietschel &amp; Storch 1974; Fejfar&amp; Storch 1990; Martín-Suárez &amp; Mein 1998), A.atavus should be considered as the ancestor of the extant species A. sylvaticus. This relationships might be corroborated by some remains of A. atavus from Willerhausen (Rietschel &amp;Storch 1974), where the exceptional preservation of bones and soft tissues allowed the authors to note that the habitus and size of the two species are similar and that A. atavus solely differs for a few characters such as the shorter ulna and femur and the stronger t 12 in M1 and M2.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFB7FFD1BB9DAF0AFD2910DE	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFB8FFD3BBFBAE0FFBEC15B6.text	72738785FFB8FFD3BBFBAE0FFBEC15B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eliomys intermedius Friant 1953	<div><p>Eliomys aff. intermedius Friant, 1953 (Fig. 6 A-E)</p> <p>Eliomys cf. truci – Angelone et al. 2011: 99, fig. 6 (17).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Sète, France.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC4; MCC5; MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — A single P4, three M1, two M2, two m1, and a single m2.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — Table 8.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>P4</p> <p>Triangular outline; anteroloph short and connected to the paracone; the anterior centroloph extends to the midpoint of the tooth; posteroloph not fused with metacone.</p> <p>M1-2</p> <p>M1 and M2 display a very similar dental pattern; the M2 usually presents a less concave anteroloph; molars are shallow basined with trapezoidal outline, the lingual side being slightly shorter than the labial one; endoloph strong and continuous; paracone slightly stouter and higher than the metacone; the anterior centroloph reaches the midpoint of the molar; posterior centroloph always present; in both M2 and in one of three M1 the posterior centroloph fuses with the anterior centroloph forming a “Y-shaped” ridge that extends to the midpoint of the molar.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>Trapezoid in outline; the endolophid is discontinuous; anterolophid connected to protoconid in one of the two available specimens; metalophid connected to metaconid; centrolophid extending beyond the midpoint of the molar; well-developed posterior extra ridge; in both specimens, the connection between hypoconid and posterolophid marked by a slight narrowing of the ridge.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Broader than long; the endolophid is discontinous; anterolophid not connected to the protoconid; metalophid not connected with the metaconid; centrolophid short; very reduced posterior extra ridge.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The presence of a continuous and strong endoloph in the upper molars excludes any possible assignment of the material from MCC to the genus Myomimus Ognev, 1924. The presence of wider than long lower molars and continuous, strong endolophs in upper molars are characteristic of the genera Dryomys Thomas, 1906 and Eliomys Wagner, 1840. According to Freudenthal &amp; Martín-Suárez (2006), the presence of an endolophid in the lower molars might be used to separate Dryomys from Eliomys. For this reason, we assign the specimens from MCC to the genus Eliomys.</p> <p>Direct comparisons with Eliomys truci Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970, a species distributed in Europe between the Late Miocene and the Late Pliocene, from the Early Ruscinian locality of Hautimagne, evidenced that the specimens from MCC mainly differ in the presence of a posterior centroloph in the upper molars, a shorter centrolophid in the m2 and in the strong reduction of the secondary accessory ridge in the m2. Moreover, in the m1-2 of E. truci from the Granada and Guadix basin, the metalophid-meta- conid connection and the anterolophid-protoconid connection are rarer compared to the material from MCC (García-Alix et al. 2008a). The measurements of the teeth from MCC are slightly larger than those of E. truci from Hautimagne (Mein &amp; Michaux 1970), Los Mansuetos, Concud 2 and 3 (van de Weerd 1976), Tollo de Chiclana 13 and 1B, Purcal 23 and 25a, La Dehesa 1 and 16, and Otura 1 and 4 (García-Alix et al. 2008a), especially as regards the width, whereas the length of the specimens of some other assemblages such as Masada del Valle 2 and 5, Concud Barranco de las Calaveras (van de Weerd 1976), and La Gloria 4 (Adrover et al. 1993a) is very close to that of MCC.</p> <p>The measurements of Eliomys intermedius Friant, 1953, widespread in Europe between the Late Miocene and the Pleistocene, are usually larger than those of the sample from MCC (van de Weerd 1976; García-Alix et al. 2008a). Recent observations on some teeth from the type locality of Sète revealed that the remains of Eliomys from MCC share some morphological characteristics with this species, such as the presence of a posterior centroloph in the upper molars and the rounded outline of some dental elements, particularly the m2. Moreover, E. intermedius displays metalophid-metaconid and anterolophid-protoconid connections as observed in the small sample of MCC. The morphology of the lower molars from MCC is also similar to that of E. intermedius since the single m2 exhibits a strong reduction of the secondary posterior ridge even if in the latter species the reduction is stronger and frequently reported in the lower molars (García-Alix et al. 2008a). In a previous paper, Angelone et al. (2011) assigned a single left M1 from MCC (MGPT-PU 127) (erroneously identified as an M3) to Eliomys cf. truci; this molar is referred herein to as Eliomys aff. intermedius because its morphological features fit well with E. intermedius,even if the size is smaller and closer to that of E. truci. Some assemblages of Eliomys from Greek and Spanish localities of Late Miocene/Early Pliocene age are referred to Eliomys aff. intermedius (de Bruijn et al. 1970; Adrover et al. 1993a; García-Alix et al. 2008a),because they share an intermediate size between E.truci and E.intermedius and display morphological traits that fit better with E. intermedius, such as the presence of a posterior centroloph, more developed metalophid-metaconid and anterolophid-protoconid connections, and reduction of the posterior extra ridge. The assemblage of MCC exhibits some peculiar morphological features, such as the common occurrence of fused centrolophs developing into a Y-shaped ridge and a strong reduction of the posterior extra ridge in the m2. These assemblages are referred to E. aff. intermedius because the material is not rich enough to determine a clear attribution. Moreover even if the studied specimens display similar morphological features to those of E. intermedius, some reliable differences with the type locality assemblage, prevent us to securely refer the material from MCC to this species.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFB8FFD3BBFBAE0FFBEC15B6	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFBDFFD5BBCEAB76FC2015B6.text	72738785FFBDFFD5BBCEAB76FC2015B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Muscardinus vireti Hugueney & Mein 1965	<div><p>Muscardinus vireti Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 (Fig. 6 F-P)</p> <p>Muscardinus vireti Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965: 118, figs 64- 78.</p> <p>Muscardinus aff. vireti – Engesser 1983: 776, fig. 6. — Colombero et al. 2013: 122, fig. 5E, F.</p> <p>Muscardinus cf. vireti – Angelone et al. 2011: 99, fig. 6 (16).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Lissieu, France.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — A single maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2; two isolated P4; 18 isolated M1; 15 isolated M2; three isolated M3; a single isolated p4; 22 isolated m1; 25 isolated m2; 9 isolated m3.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — Table 9.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>P4</p> <p>Ovoid in outline; three main ridges; first and second ridges connected on the lingual side.</p> <p>M1</p> <p>Six main ridges; first ridge convex and lingually bent forming a “crochet” (sensu Hugueney &amp; Mein 1965); second ridge lingually inclined; all ridges but the first one connected by an elongate endoloph; a single specimen possesses small labial and lingual portions of an extra ridge situated between the third and fourth crests; four roots, three specimens with a supplementary anterolabial rootlet.</p> <p>M2</p> <p>Eight main low ridges; a complete endoloph connects all the ridges; half of the specimens exhibit a small labial portion of an extra ridge; usually arising as a bifurcation of the sixth ridge; three or four roots.</p> <p>M3</p> <p>Trapezoid or triangular in outline; eight main ridges connected by a complete endoloph; half of the specimens with a small labial portion of an extra ridge; usually as a bifurcation of the fifth or the</p> <p>sixth ridge; rare specimens with two labial portion of extra ridges; three roots.</p> <p>p4</p> <p>Ovoid in outline; three main ridges weakly connected on the labial side.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>Six main ridges; first and second ridges connected both on labial and lingual sides; third ridge convex or straight; forth, fifth and sixth ridges slightly convex; fifth and sixth ridges sometimes connected on the labial or lingual side; three roots.</p> <p>m2</p> <p>Six main ridges; lingual side of the molar slightly longer than labial one; a swelling of the enamel occasionally occurs on the anterolabial border of the molar; ridges frequently connected on the labial side, most notably between first and second and between fifth and sixth ridges; a lingual portion of an extra ridge regularly present between the third and fourth ridges; in half of the specimens a smaller labial portion of an extra ridge is present between the third and fourth ridges; four roots.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>Trapezoid in outline; lingual side longer than labial one; six main ridges; first and second ridges and fifth and sixth ridges occasionally connected on the labial and lingual side; 60% of specimens with a small lingual portion of an extra ridge between third and fourth ridges.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The flattened molars bearing a high number of roughly parallel ridges clearly support the attribution of the material documented herein to the genus Muscardinus Kaup, 1829.</p> <p>The measurements of the studied material fit well with those of Muscardinus helleri Fejfar &amp; Storch, 1990 from the Ruscinian locality of Gundersheim 4, even if the width of this latter species is generally larger. The morphology of the teeth from MCC is roughly similar to that of M. helleri primarily concerning the presence of six main ridges on the lower molars and M1, eight ridges on M2 and M3, as well as small lingual and labial extra ridges on the m2. However, some minor differences can be recognized, including the presence of a short endoloph in the M1 and M 2 in M. helleri not reaching the last two ridges, the absence of extra ridges in the M2, and the presence in fewer specimens with a lingual “crochet” on the first ridge of M1.</p> <p>The European Plio-Pleistocene Muscardinus pliocaenicus Kowalski, 1963 and the Late Miocene Muscardinus pliocaenicus austriacus Bachmayer &amp; Wilson, 1970 from Austria (see also Daxner-Höck &amp; Höck 2009) are slightly smaller than M. vireti from MCC. Moreover, these taxa are characterized by a minor number of ridges in the M1 and M2 and by the absence of extra ridges in the lower molars.</p> <p>Muscardinus dacicus Kormos, 1930 from the Plio-Pleistocene of Europe shows a larger size and can be easily distinguished from the material of MCC by its simplified dental pattern without extra ridges on the m2 and with less developed ridges separated by larger valleys in the M1.</p> <p>The Late Miocene species Muscardinus davidi Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu is characterized by a size comparable to that of MCC from which it differs in having less seven ridges in the M2.</p> <p>The measurements of Muscardinus meridionalis García-Alix, Minwer-Barakat, Martín-Suárez &amp; Freudenthal, 2008 from the localities Purcal 24 (Late Turolian) and Purcal 4 (Early Ruscinian) in the Granada Basin (García-Alix et al. 2008c) are only slightly larger than those of the studied material from MCC. The general pattern of the molars is rather similar in displaying a similar number of main ridges in each dental element. However, in M. meridionalis extra ridges are not present on M2 and M3, the endoloph of upper molars seems to be weaker, the “crochet” on the first ridge of the M1 only rarely occurs and the extra ridges on the lower molars are extremely infrequent in the m2 and completely absent in the m3.</p> <p>Compared with Muscardinus vireti Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu, the specimens from MCC display slightly larger mean lengths and widths even if the size ranges partially overlap and also show a very similar morphology. In M. vireti the number of ridges is identical for each dental element (six in M1 and lower molars, eight in M2 and M3), the endoloph is well-developed and connects the last five ridges of M1, lingual and labial portions of extra ridges occur in many m2 and, finally, some M2 and M3 exhibit incomplete extra ridges very similar in shape to those observed in the specimens from MCC.</p> <p>A few specimens assigned to Muscardinus aff. vireti were reported from Baccinello V3 (Engesser 1983). The measurements of that material are intermediate between those from MCC and Lissieu except for the m3 that are smaller. From the morphological point of view, the arrangement of the ridges of the molars is remarkably similar to that from MCC and no reliable differences can be detected.</p> <p>The Muscardinus material from MCC is therefore assigned to M. vireti. The slight size differences with the material from Lissieu can be explained by the different age of the two localities, since Lissieu is probably slightly older than MCC (Gómez Cano et al. 2011). The intermediate size of the teeth from Baccinello V3 confirms that slight size differences are to be expected in assemblages of different age and geographic provenance.</p> <p>According to García-Alix et al. (2008c), M. vireti should be considered the ancestor of M. meridionalis. This interpretation is followed herein, justified by several relevant morphological features that are shared by these two taxa, including the number of crests in upper and lower molars. Actually, M. meridionalis only differs in having a slightly modified dental pattern with very uncommon extra ridges, a much rarer occurrence of the “crochet” on the M1, and the weaker endoloph. García-Alix et al. (2008c) considered M. helleri as the descendant of M. meridionalis. Such hypothesis appears to be weak considering that M. helleri displays a slightly more complicated dental pattern than M. meridionalis, with more developed extra ridges in the m2. Therefore, the lineage M. vireti – M. meridionalis – M. helleri seems to be dubious since it would imply a simplification of the dental pattern (M. vireti – M. meridionalis) followed by a reversal of this trend (M. meridionalis – M. helleri). Muscardinus meridionalis possibly represents a taxon exclusive from southern Spain.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFBDFFD5BBCEAB76FC2015B6	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FFBFFFE8BBD8A9D1FEA211D8.text	72738785FFBFFFE8BBD8A9D1FEA211D8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney & Mein 1965	<div><p>Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 (Fig. 7A, B)</p> <p>Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965: 117, figs 57- 63. — Daxner-Höck &amp; Höck 2009: 419, fig.17 (cum syn.).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Lissieu, France.</p> <p>Occurrence in the studied layers. — MCC5; MCC7.</p> <p>Referred material: — Two isolated M2; a single isolat- ed m1.</p> <p>Measurements. — M2: MGPT-PU 127496 (1.05 × 1.03); MGPT-PU 127510 (0.98 × 0.93); m1: MGPT-PU 128351 (0.96 × 0.95).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M2</p> <p>Five main and four accessory ridges; well-developed endoloph connected with all main ridges; slightly convex anteroloph; protoloph and anterior centroloph connected on the labial side; metaloph and posteroloph connected on the labial side; posterior centroloph elongate and weakly connected to the metaloph; three main roots plus a small rootlet partially fused with the antero-labial root.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>Five main and five accessory ridges; endolophid connected with all main ridges and narrowed between mesolophid and centrolophid; two accessory ridges between anterolophid and metalophid, the posterior one being very small; centrolophid not reaching the labial border; mesolophid long, strongly forward bent and weakly connected to the endolophid and to a small anterior accessory ridge on the lingual side; labial side of posterolophid strongly curved forward reaching the level of the lingual end of the mesolophid; two roots.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The small glirid recovered at MCC can be distinguished from the Miocene genus Paraglirulus Engesser, 1972 based on the absence of a free labial end on the anterior centroloph of the upper molars and of the presence of a complete endolophid in the m1 (van der Meulen &amp; de Bruijn 1982). These features indicate that the material from MCC belongs to the genus Glirulus Thomas, 1906, distributed in Europe since the Early Miocene and currently represented by the small Japanese dormouse Glirulus japonicus (Schinz, 1845).</p> <p>The comparison with the material of Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from its type locality Lissieu did not reveal substantial morphological differences with the specimens from MCC. Moreover, the single m1 recognized in MCC is very similar to the holotype of G. lissiensis since both display a very similar structure of the endolophid that narrows between mesolophid and centrolophid, five accessory ridges, the first two lying between anterolophid and metalophid, and mesolophid and posterolophid strongly bent forward.</p> <p>The size of the material from MCC is consistent with that of G. lissiensis from Lissieu (Hugueney &amp; Mein 1965) and other Miocene European localities such as Oberdorf (de Bruijn 1998), Rudabanya (Daxner-Höck 2005), Eichkogels (Daxner-Höck &amp; de Bruijn 1981), Belchatów (Kowalski 1997), Richaldholf, Schernham, and Kohfidish (Daxner- Höck &amp; Höck 2009) except for one of the two available M2 (MPST-PU127496), which is slightly larger. The size of this latter specimen, however, fits well with those of G. aff. lissiensis from Saint Bauzile (Mein &amp; Romaggi 1991). The material from MCC is also roughly similar in morphology and size to Glirulus pusillus (Heller, 1936) from some Pliocene and Pleistocene European localities (Kowalski 1963; Michaux 1970; Fejfar &amp; Storch 1990; Daoud 1993; Mörs et al. 1998; Dahlmann 2001; van den Hoek Ostende 2003). According to Hugueney &amp; Mein (1965), G. lissiensis differs from G. pusillus in having a less-developed endolophid, shorter labial branches of the main ridges in the lower molars and biradiculated lower molars. However, the number of roots in lower molars does not seem to be a reliable feature to distinguish these two species since lower molars of G. pusillus from Gundersheim 4 (Fejfar &amp; Storch 1990) and many other localities (Daoud 1993; van den Hoek Ostende 2003) are biradiculated. The specimens of Glirulus from MCC are assigned to G. lissiensis since they are morphologically nearly indistinguishable from those of the type population from Lissieu. G. lissiensis is currently considered as the descendant of the Lower Miocene Glirulus diremptus (Mayr, 1979) (Daxner-Höck &amp; de Bruijn 1981; van der Meulen &amp; de Bruijn 1982; Nadachowski &amp; Daoud 1994). According to Daxner-Höck &amp; Höck (2009) its biochronological range extends from MN4 to MN13. The Plio-Pleistocene G. pusillus possibly derived from G. lissiensis (Daxner-Höck &amp; de Bruijn 1981; van der Meulen &amp; de Bruijn 1982; Nadachowski &amp; Daoud 1994). The extant G. japonicus, a taxon endemic of the Japanese Archipelago, shows a dental pattern very similar to that of the extinct European species, also displaying slightly larger sizes and lower molars with three roots (van der Meulen &amp; de Bruijn 1982; Mein &amp; Romaggi 1991); this taxon has been classically interpreted as the descendant of Villanyan immigrant populations of G. pusillus from Europe (van der Meulen &amp; de Bruijn 1982).</p> <p>An exceptionally preserved specimen of G. aff. lissiensis was found at Saint-Bauzile (MN11) (Mein &amp; Romaggi 1991). The extraordinary preservation of soft tissues revealed the presence of a patagium suggesting an adaptation to gliding, a locomotor behavior not observed in extant glirids.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FFBFFFE8BBD8A9D1FEA211D8	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF81FFE9BBA3A930FED9111A.text	72738785FF81FFE9BBA3A930FED9111A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glis minor Kowalski 1956	<div><p>Glis minor Kowalski, 1956</p> <p>(Fig. 7 C-I)</p> <p>Glis sackdillingensis minor Kowalski, 1956: 384, text fig. 2f, pl. 4, fig. 8.</p> <p>Glis minor – Kowalski 1963: 545, text figs 8-10 (cum syn.). — Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009: 66, pl. 27, fig. 9. — Angelone et al. 2011: 99, fig. 6, 15. — Hellmund &amp; Ziegler 2012: 84, pl. 4, figs 9-18.</p> <p>Myoxus minor Daoud, 1993: 213.</p> <p>Glis minor minor – Daxner-Höck &amp; Höck 2009: 406, fig. 13 (cum syn.).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Podlesice, Poland.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC3, MCC4, MCC5, MCC7.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — Three P4; four M1; six M2; six p4; four m1; two m2; two m3. Further details in Appendix 1.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — see Table 10.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>P4</p> <p>Four main ridges; one to three accessory ridges; centroloph present and connected to protoloph in a single specimen; two roots.</p> <p>M1-2</p> <p>M1 and M2 display a very similar structure; M2 generally wider with less convex anteroloph; four main and three accessory ridges; main ridges slightly bent backward on the lingual side; centroloph labially connected to the protoloph in 40% of M1 and M2; three roots.</p> <p>p4</p> <p>Four main ridges free on their labial side; anterolophid and metalophid connected on the lingual side; two accessory ridges are present; a small ridge develops between anterolophid and metalophid in a single specimen; a single root.</p> <p>m1-2</p> <p>m1 morphologically similar to m2 but more elongated and anteriorly narrower. Anterolophid connected with metalophid on lingual side through an incomplete endolophid; first accessory ridge weakly connected to endolophid in half of the available m1 and isolated in all the m2; centrolophid weakly connected to metalophid in a single specimen; two roots.</p> <p>m3</p> <p>Trapezoid in outline; ridge arrangement identical to that of m1-2; centrolophid represented by a small swelling of the enamel in a single specimen; two roots.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The morphological features and measurements of the material from MCC fit well with those of Glis minor Kowalski, 1956 from the type locality of Podlesice (Early Pliocene of Poland) (Kowalski 1956) and many other European Neogene localities such as Richardhof and Kohfidish (Daxner-Höck &amp; Höck 2009), Węże 1 and Rebielece (Kowalski 1956, 1963; Daoud 1993), Notio 1 and Komanos 1 (Hordijk &amp; de Bruijn 2009), Gundersheim 4 (Fejfar &amp; Storch 1990), and Sondershausen (Hellmund &amp; Ziegler 2012). The specimens from Rudabanya (Daxner-Höck 2005) are only slightly larger than those from MCC.</p> <p>Glis sackdillingensis (Heller, 1930), a common Plio-Pleistocene European species, is slightly larger and has a larger number of accessory ridges in the M1-2 (Daoud 1993).</p> <p>The dental pattern of the genus Glis is remarkably conservative, since that of the extant species Glis glis (Linnaeus, 1766) is hardly distinguishable from that of the extinct Miocene species (Daams &amp; de Bruijn 1995). Therefore, it is extremely difficult to define the phylogenetic trajectories of this genus exclusively based on dental remains. Some authors (Daoud 1993; Nadachowski &amp; Daoud 1994) hypothesized the reliability of the lineage G. minor– G. sackdillingens–G. glis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF81FFE9BBA3A930FED9111A	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF80FFECBB86A8D2FE2015B6.text	72738785FF80FFECBB86A8D2FE2015B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sciurus warthae Sulimski 1964	<div><p>Sciurus warthae Sulimski, 1964</p> <p>(Fig. 8A, B)</p> <p>Sciurus warthae Sulimski, 1964: 162, text fig. 3, pl. 3, figs 1-4. — Marchetti et al. 2000: 90, figs 3, 9-14. — Dahlmann 2001: 49, pl. 7, figs 20-27.</p> <p>Sciurus cf. warthae – Black &amp; Kowalski 1974: 465, pl. 12, figs 1, 2. — Siori &amp; Sala 2007: 210, figs 2, 1-2.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Węże 1, Poland.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC5.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — A single isolated M3; a single isolated m1.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — M3:MGPT-PU 128219 (2.84 × 2.60); m1: MGPT-PU 128221 (2.28 × 2.42).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M3</p> <p>Triangular in outline; central basin deep and broad, moderately expanded posteriorly without evidence of crenulation; large and rounded protocone gradually rising from the endoloph; anteroloph lower than protoloph; paracone high and vertical; central basin bordered by a continuous rim interrupted just behind the paracone, where a cusplet occurs; three roots.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>Rhomboid in outline; molar basin without crenulation; the metaconid constitutes the higher cuspid followed by the hypoconid; protoconid less developed than hypoconid; well-developed and distinct entoconid resulting in an angular postero-lingual outline; anterolophid low; metalophid scarcely visible due to wear; mesostylid very poorly marked and represented by a weak enamel swelling; a notch is present anterior to the entoconid; mesoconid very low and separated from protoconid and hypoconid by two notches; roots not preserved.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The postero-lingual outline of the m1 is notably angular with a distinct entoconid, a feature present in tree squirrels and most of the flying squirrels (de Bruijn 1999). Among flying squirrels the morphology of the teeth of the genera Hylopetes Thomas, 1908 and Neopetes Daxner-Höck, 2004 is the most similar to the studied material. However, the dental morphology of the extant species of Hylopetes (see Bouwens &amp; de Bruijn 1986 and Thorington et al. 1996, 2002), and comparison with some teeth of Hylopetes lepidus Horsfield, 1822 (IVAU and UCBL collections) evidenced the existence of some differences with the studied material. In particular, the m1-2 of extant Hylopetes are characterized by protoconid and hypoconid of roughly similar size and structure; both cuspids are high, distinctly vertical, remarkably protruding over the labial margin and from the postero-labial corner of the tooth; the protolophid can be easily distinguished from the hypoconid because it extends slightly posteriorly. In the single m1 from MCC the protoconid is less developed than the hypoconid; the hypoconid does not protrude over the postero-labial corner; the labial cuspids are not as distinct from the cingulids as in extant Hylopetes, the posterolophid constitutes a lingual extension of the hypoconid and does not extends posteriorly as in Hylopetes. In addition, in extant Hylopetes the anterolophid is well developed, always forming an evident anterosinusid and usually a distinct anteroconulid that is absent in the studied specimen; the mesostylid of extant Hylopetes is usually present and somewhat isolated whereas it is barely sketched in the single m1 from MCC. In the M3 of extant Hylopetes the protocone is well distinct from the endoloph, whereas in the specimen from MCC the protocone is broader and more rounded, gradually rising from the endoloph. Moreover, the enamel of the studied teeth is not sculptured as it usually occurs in unworn teeth of Hylopetes. In summary, Hylopetes displays more isolated, distinct and higher tubercles, a pronounced anterosinusid and more sculptured and crenulated enamel with respect to the studied molars. Daxner-Höck (2004) included some Neogene species of sciurids previously assigned to the genus Hylopetes, such as Hy- lopetes macedoniensis Bouwens &amp; de Bruijn, 1986 and Hylopetes hoeckarum de Bruijn, 1998, within the genus Neopetes. Neopetes differs from Hylopetes in having extremely low tooth-crowns and almost no sculptured enamel on unworn teeth; the lower teeth differ considerably by their rhomboid outline and by the presence of pronounced entoconids and mesostylids separated by a wide notch (Daxner-Höck 2004). Direct examination of material belonging to Neopetes macedoniensis (Bouwens &amp; de Bruijn, 1986) from the latest Miocene of Maramena revealed that this species differs from the material of MCC also in the presence of better developed anterolophulids, commonly present anteroconulids and anterosinusids and more distinct labial cuspids in the lower molars. A very well-defined mesostylid is also present in Neopetes hoeckarum (de Bruijn, 1998) from Lower and Middle Miocene of Central Europe (see Daxner-Höck 2004). Therefore, the studied molars cannot be assigned to Neopetes especially because of the absence of mesostylid and anterosinusid and the presence of less distinct tubercles.</p> <p>The morphology of the studied lower molars is remarkably similar to that of Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758, type species of the genus Sciurus Linnaeus, 1758, with a well-developed metaconid and a distinct entoconid. Moreover, the lower teeth of S. vulgaris do not display strongly developed anterolophulids and they lack anterosinusids and anteroconulids. In addition, the m1 and m2 of S. vulgaris display a more quadrangular outline. The M3 from MCC is also very similar to that of Sciurus vulgaris in certain dental structures, including the large protocone, high paracone, very narrow basin between anteroloph and protoloph, and presence of a notch on the rim just behind the paracone.We therefore assign the studied specimen to the genus Sciurus.</p> <p>The size of the teeth from MCC agrees very well with that of Sciurus warthae Sulimski, 1964 from Podlesice (Black &amp; Kowalski 1974), being slightly smaller than those from younger localities as Węże 1 (type locality, Sulimski 1964), Zamkowa Dolna (Black &amp; Kowalski 1974), Monte la Mesa (Marchetti et al. 2000), Wölfersheim (Dahlmann 2001), and Castagnone (Siori &amp; Sala 2007). The material from MCC was compared with some teeth of S. warthae from Monte La Mesa where unfortunately no M3 was found; the morphology of the m1 from the two localities is strikingly similar, especially in the well-developed metaconid, in the poorly developed mesostylid and in the isolation of the low mesoconid. According to the original description of the type assemblage from Węże 1, S. warthae does not exhibit a mesostylid or it is very weak. The material from MCC is therefore assigned to S. warthae because of its remarkable similarity to the specimens from the type locality and from the other localities of Europe.</p> <p>The material of MCC was compared with Hylopetes magistri van den Hoek Ostende &amp; Reumer, 2011 from the Pleistocene of Tegelen (Reumer &amp; van den Hoek Ostende 2003; van den Hoek Ostende &amp; Reumer 2011). This species was originally identified as Hylopetes debruijni Reumer &amp; van den Hoek Ostende, 2003 name already preoccupied by a different species, Hylopetes debruijni Mein &amp; Ginsburg, 2002, and for this reason subsequently modified to H. magistri (see van den Hoek Ostende &amp; Reumer 2011 for further details). The specimens from MCC differ from H. magistri in having a slightly smaller size and in the absence of enamel crenulation that barely affects two teeth from Tegelen. The overall morphological pattern of the lower molars is very similar since m1 and m2 display a well-developed entoconid, small and isolated mesoconid, absence of anterosinusid and anteroconulids, well-developed metaconid, absence or strong reduction of mesostylid in the lower molars. Moreover, the specimens of M3 from Tegelen are also very similar to those from MCC since they show a high paracone and a low and rather continuous rim from which a large protocone arises. In our opinion, the absence of well developed anterosinusids, anteroconulids and mesostylids as well as the occurrence of poorly isolated cuspids in the material from Tegelen do not support their assignment to Hylopetes or Neopetes. In addition, feeble crenulations as those affecting two teeth (upon 17 specimens) from the collection of Tegelen represent a weak diagnostic character for ascribing this material to Hylopetes or Neopetes. In fact, the presence of crenulations and ornamented enamel is not an exclusive feature of flying squirrels, but it can occur also in many genera of ground and tree squirrels (Thorington et al. 2005). The overall morphology of H. magistri fits better with that of the genus Sciurus Linnaeus, 1758. Moreover, pitted enamel can be observed in Sciurus granatensis and Sciurus vulgaris (Thorington et al. 2005: 954) thus suggesting that moderate enamel ornamentation could also rarely affect the teeth of Sciurus. Therefore, we tentatively assign H. magistri to the genus Sciurus. The new combination is therefore Sciurus magistri (van den Hoek Ostende &amp; Reumer, 2011). The size and the morphological pattern of the teeth are very similar to S. warthae thus suggesting that S. magistri may be considered a junior synonym of S. warthae. Nonetheless, the presence of the slight enamel ornamentations, up to date unknown in S. warthae, prevents us to definitely synonymize these two taxa.</p> <p>The record of S. warthae from MCC represents the oldest report of the genus Sciurus in Europe. S. warthae was previously known from the slightly younger fissure fillings of Podlesice (MN14) (Black &amp; Kowalski 1974). To date S. warthae has been reported from some Pliocene and Pleistocene localities of Poland (Sulimski 1964; Black &amp; Kowalski 1974), Germany (Dahlmann 2001) and Italy (Marchetti et al. 2000; Siori &amp; Sala 2007). The few known specimens of this poorly documented taxon do not allow tracing its relationships within the genus Sciurus whose paleontological record is very scarce before the Pliocene (Emry et al. 2005). Sciurus sp. from the latest Miocene of Ertemte 2 (Qiu 1991) differs from Sciurus warthae in having a slightly better developed mesostylid, mesostyle in P4 absent and a weaker parastyle in the M1-2. The strong morphological affinities existing between S. warthae and S. vulgaris seem to indicate a close phylogenetic relationship between these two species. The earliest record of S. vulgaris is probably that from the Middle Pleistocene of Hórvölgy Cave, Hungary (Lurz et al. 2005). The first reliable records of the genus Sciurus are those of Sciurus lii Qiu &amp; Yan, 2005 from the Early to Middle Miocene locality of Shanwang (China) (Qiu &amp; Yan 2005) and Sciurus olsoni Emry, Kort &amp; Bell, 2005 from the Clarendonian (early-Late Miocene) of Nevada (Emry et al. 2005).? Sciurus sp. is reported in the Late Miocene of Anatolia (Bosma et al. 2013) thus suggesting that the genus Sciurus was already present in western Asia before the end of the Miocene. The record of MCC testifies that Sciurus entered Europe at least slightly before the beginning of the Pliocene.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF80FFECBB86A8D2FE2015B6	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF85FFEDB981AB76FB1C1059.text	72738785FF85FFEDB981AB76FB1C1059.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pliopetaurista pliocaenica (Deperet 1897)	<div><p>Pliopetaurista pliocaenica (Depéret, 1897) (Fig. 8C, D)</p> <p>Sciuropterus pliocaenicus Depéret, 1897: 179, pl. 18, figs 34, 35.</p> <p>Pliopetaurista pliocaenica – Mein 1970: 40, figs 66-71. — Adrover et al. 1993b: 98, pl. 6, figs 1-4. — Mörs et al. 1998: 137, figs 3, 1-3. — Dahlmann 2001:54, pl. 9, figs 1-21 (cum syn.). — García-Alix et al. 2007: 273, fig. 4A-E.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY. — Perpignan, France.</p> <p>OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDIED LAYERS. — MCC5.</p> <p>REFERRED MATERIAL. — A single isolated M3; a single isolated m1.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS. — M3: MGPT-PU 128347 (2.84 × 2.64); m1: MGPT-PU 128218 (2.77 × 2.51).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION</p> <p>M3</p> <p>The anteroloph is well developed and slightly lower than protoloph; protocone located slightly posteriorly with respect to the protoloph-endoloph contact; distal border of endoloph enlarged but not developed into a cusp.</p> <p>m1</p> <p>Rugose surface; protoconid and hypoconid connected by ectolophid on which a marked mesoconid is developed; anterolophid well-developed; metalophid interrupted without connection with metaconid; presence of a small hypoconulid on the posterolophid; hypolophid very short.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Large size, sinuous accessory ridges and labyrinthic appearance of the occlusal surface are diagnostic features of the Pteromyinae (García-Alix et al. 2007). Within this group, the absence of free mesostylids, presence of hypolophids and absence of metaloph in the M3 suggest that the material from MCC can be assigned to the genus Pliopetaurista Kretzoi, 1962. This genus was present in the Miocene of Europe with the species Pliopetaurista kollmanni Daxner-Höck, 2004, Pliopetaurista bressana Mein, 1970, Pliopetaurista dehneli (Sulimski, 1964), Pliopetaurista pliocaenica (Depéret, 1897), and was also present in Asia during the latest part of the Miocene represented by Pliopetaurista rugosa Qiu, 1991.</p> <p>P. kollmanni from the Late Miocene of Austria differs from the material from MCC in the considerably smaller teeth, less pronounced loph(id)s (except for the metalophid that is more developed in P. kollmanni) and tubercles. The Middle to Late Miocene species P. bressana differs from the material of MCC in having a smaller size, less developed ridges and tubercles, a small anterosinusid and slightly more developed metalophids in the lower molars. P. rugosa from the latest Miocene locality of Ertemnte 2 (Qiu 1991) is larger than specimens from MCC. Moreover, the shape of the M3 is quite different in displaying a reduced basin and a thinner endoloph, not enlarged on the distal side. The size of the material from MCC is close to the higher values of P. dehneli from the type locality of Węże 1 (Sulimski 1964) and slightly larger than that from the latest Miocene/earliest Pliocene of Greece, Maramena, (de Bruijn 1995) and Kessani (Vasileiadou et al. 2012) and from the Early Pliocene of Hautimagne (Mein 1970). The material from MCC mainly differs from P. dehneli in having a less developed metalophid and in the presence of a small hypoconulid. Moreover, the presence of a distal enlargement of the endoloph in the M3 observed in the material from MCC is usually absent in the upper molars of P. dehneli (Mein 1970).</p> <p>The size of the specimens from MCC agrees with the lower values of the size range of P. pliocaenica from the Pliocene localities of Wölfersheim (Mein 1970), Arquillo 3 (Adrover et al. 1993b), and Hambach (Mörs et al. 1998). The unique M3 assigned to P. pliocaenica from the latest Miocene of Purcal 24A (García-Alix et al. 2007) is larger than the specimen from MCC. Pliopetaurista cf. pliocaenica from the Early Pleistocene locality of Zamkowa Dolna (Black &amp; Kowalski 1974) is larger than the material from MCC. The morphology of the specimens from MCC remarkably agrees with that of P. pliocaenica, primarily concerning the scarcely developed metalophid, the small hypoconulid in the single m1and the distal enlargement of the endoloph in the M3. Due to this similarity, the material from MCC is assigned to P. pliocaenica.</p> <p>According to some authors (Mein 1970; Black &amp; Kowalski 1974; de Bruijn 1995) the lineage P. bressana – P. dehneli – P. pliocaenica, characterized by a gradual increase in size, can be recognized within the genus Pliopetaurista. The recent findings of P. pliocaenica in some Upper Turolian localities of Spain (García-Alix et al. 2007), and thus contemporary or even slightly older than P. dehneli from eastern Europe (de Bruijn 1995; Vasileiadou et al. 2003, 2012), does not seem to support this view. According to García-Alix et al. (2007) the largesized species P. pliocaenica evolved in the Iberian Peninsula and subsequently migrated to central and eastern Europe. The finding from MCC does not disagree with such hypothesis, even though it indicates that the expansion of the geographical range of this species may have occurred before the end of the Miocene, during or suddenly after the MSC.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF85FFEDB981AB76FB1C1059	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF90FFF9BBD2AB37FDBA10BE.text	72738785FF90FFF9BBD2AB37FDBA10BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neocricetodon magnus (Fahlbusch 1969)	<div><p>Neocricetodon magnus (Fahlbusch, 1969)</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>Two isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127932, 127845; One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127846.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>Two isolated M1 (fragmented):MGPT-PU 127421, 127498;</p> <p>Two isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127499, 127500; One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127424;</p> <p>Five isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127420, 127425- 127427, 127922;</p> <p>Three isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127422, 127423, 127497.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128268;</p> <p>One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 128273.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF90FFF9BBD2AB37FDBA10BE	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF90FFF9BBFDA98EFCAE16B3.text	72738785FF90FFF9BBFDA98EFCAE16B3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paraethomys meini (Michaux 1969)	<div><p>Paraethomys meini (Michaux, 1969)</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>Three isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127439, 127440, 127765;</p> <p>Two isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127766, 127767; Three isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127461, 127768, 127769.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>Five isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127120, 127126, 127829, 127830, 127831;</p> <p>Four isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127233, 127832- 127834;</p> <p>Four isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127944, 127835- 127837;</p> <p>Four isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127186, 127190, 127945, 127946;</p> <p>Three isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127238, 127947, 127838;</p> <p>One isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127948.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>Nine maxillary fragments bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 127501, 127913, 127914, 128016- 128021;</p> <p>Two maxillary fragments bearing M2 and M3: MGPT-PU 128038, 128045;</p> <p>One mandible bearing m2 and m3: MGPT-PU 127920;</p> <p>21 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127092, 127095, 127098, 127099, 127911, 127912, 128022-128036; 16 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127204, 127205, 127212, 127915, 127916, 128037, 128039-128044, 128046-128049;</p> <p>13 isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127345, 127353, 127356, 127602, 127886, 127917,128050-128056; 16 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127918, 127919, 128057-128070;</p> <p>16 isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127268, 127272, 127280, 127283, 127302, 127921, 128071-128080; Nine isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127603, MGPT-PU 128081-128087.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>Three isolated M1: MGPT-PU 128242, 128243, 128336;</p> <p>Four isolated M2: MGPT-PU 128275, 128277, 128286, 128288;</p> <p>Three isolated M3: MGPT-PU 128291, 128293, 128297;</p> <p>Seven isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128300, 127464, 127465, 128271, 128307, 128309, 128311;</p> <p>12 isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127471-127474, 128312, 128317, 128322-128324, 128327-128329; Three isolated m3: MGPT-PU 128342, 127865, 128337.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF90FFF9BBFDA98EFCAE16B3	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF90FFFAB9A9AF8AFB2610B9.text	72738785FF90FFFAB9A9AF8AFB2610B9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Occitanomys brailloni Michaux 1969	<div><p>Occitanomys brailloni Michaux, 1969</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 127453;</p> <p>Nine isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127435, 127436, 127438, 127451, 127452, 127454, 127455, 127745, 127746; Five isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127442, 127444, 127446, 127447, 127781; One isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127747; Five isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127460, 127462, 127752-127754; Four isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127748-127751; Three isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127755-127757.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>One maxillary fragment bearing M2 and M3: MGPT-PU 127789;</p> <p>19 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127116-127119, 127121-127125, 127127-127129, 127782-127787, 127926;</p> <p>19 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127230-127232, 127235-127237, 127239-127241, 127243, 127323, 127788, 127790-127794, 127927, 127928; Eight isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127795-127800, 127929, 127930;</p> <p>11 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127187-127189, 127191, 127192, 127196, 127801-127804, 127931; Three isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127805-127807; One isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127808.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 127868;</p> <p>Two mandibular fragments bearing m1, m2 and m3: MGPT-PU 127507, 127508;</p> <p>Two mandibular fragments bearing m1 and m2: MGPT-PU 127626, MGPT-PU 127872;</p> <p>46 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127088, 127090, 127091, 127093, 127094, 127096, 127097, 127100, 127103-127105, 127220, 127520-127552, MGPT-PU 127869;</p> <p>47 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127201-127203, 127206, 127208, 127211, 127216, 127218, 127219, 127225, 127226, 127229, 127553-127565, 127567-127586, 127874, 127875;</p> <p>15 isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127350-127352, 127354, 127360, 127587-127594, 127657, 127876; 44 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127154, 127156, 127158, 127160-127166, 127175,127176, 127595-</p> <p>127599, 127605, 127612-127625, 127627-127636, 127870, 127873;</p> <p>48 isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127269, 127271, 127273, 127274, 127277-127279, 127281, 127284, 127285, 127290, 127293, 127294, 127300, 127637-127656, 127666-127675, 127877-127880. 20 isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127658, 127676- 127692, 127881, 127882.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>One mandibular fragment bearing m1, m2 and m3: MGPT-PU 128302;</p> <p>Five isolated M1: MGPT-PU 128244-128248; Eight isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127853, 127854, 128227, 128274, 128281-128283, 128287; Two isolated M3: MGPT-PU 128292, MGPT- PU 128296;</p> <p>Four isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128303-128305, 127855;</p> <p>Six isolated m2: MGPT-PU 128315, 128320, 128325, 128326, 127477, 127857;</p> <p>Seven isolated m3: MGPT-PU 128334, 128338, 128339, 128343, 128345, 127858, 127859.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF90FFFAB9A9AF8AFB2610B9	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF93FFFBB982A98EFF63173F.text	72738785FF93FFFBB982A98EFF63173F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Centralomys benericettii (De Giuli 1989)	<div><p>Centralomys benericettii (De Giuli, 1989)</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 127770;</p> <p>Two isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127437, 127456; One isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127771;</p> <p>Three isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127459, 127772, 127773;</p> <p>One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127774.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>Six isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127068, 127074, 127107, 127113-127115;</p> <p>Seven isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127244-127246, 127839-127842;</p> <p>Five isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127179, 127184, 127198, 127843, 127949;</p> <p>Two isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127844, 127950. MCC 5</p> <p>14 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127903, 128088- 128100;</p> <p>13 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 128101-128113; Three isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127344, 128114, 128115;</p> <p>23 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127148-127150, 127152, 127153, 127155, 127157, 127174, 127871, 127904, 127905, 128116-128127;</p> <p>25 isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127275, 127282, 127291, 127292, 127298, 127301, 127906-127908, 128128-128143;</p> <p>Three isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127909, 128144, 128145.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>One mandibular fragment bearing m1 and m2: MGPT-PU 128298;</p> <p>Nine isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127468, 127866, 128249-128254, 128335;</p> <p>Five isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127476, 128276, 128278, 128280, 128289;</p> <p>One isolated M3: MGPT-PU 128294;</p> <p>Four isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128272, 128299, 128308, 128310;</p> <p>Three isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127867, 128321, 128330.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF93FFFBB982A98EFF63173F	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF92FFFBBBE4AE0FFBE9119B.text	72738785FF92FFFBBBE4AE0FFBE9119B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Micromys bendai van de Weerd 1979	<div><p>Micromys bendai van de Weerd, 1979</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>One isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127434;</p> <p>Two isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127775, 127776.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>Three isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127200, 127850, 127851;</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127852.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>Three mandibular fragments bearing m1 and m2: MGPT-PU 127509, 128165, 128167;</p> <p>Five isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127082, 127089, 128158-128160;</p> <p>Four isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127224, 128161- 128163;</p> <p>One isolated M3: MGPT-PU 128164;</p> <p>Four isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127147, 127151, 127600, 128166;</p> <p>Three isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127601, 127910, 128168.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>Four isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127467, 128257- 128259;</p> <p>One isolated M2: MGPT-PU 128279;</p> <p>One isolated M3: MGPT-PU 128295;</p> <p>Three isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128255, 128256, 128306;</p> <p>One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 128314.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF92FFFBBBE4AE0FFBE9119B	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF92FFFCB986A8B3FF6317DD.text	72738785FF92FFFCB986A8B3FF6317DD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd 1976	<div><p>Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd, 1976</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 127428;</p> <p>Eight isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127429-127433, 127448-127450;</p> <p>Three isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127445, 127758, 127759;</p> <p>One isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127760;</p> <p>Four isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127457, 127458, 127761, 127780;</p> <p>Two isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127762, 127763; One isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127760.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>16 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127106, 127108- 127111, 127130, 127131, 127809-127814, 127933- 127935;</p> <p>12 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127234, 127324- 127326, 127815-127820, 127936, 127937;</p> <p>Five isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127821-127823, 127938, 127939;</p> <p>11 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127182, 127183, 127185, 127193-127195, 127197, 127824-127826, 127940;</p> <p>Three isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127827, 127941, 127942;</p> <p>Two isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127828, 127943.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 127699;</p> <p>37 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127083-127085, 127087, 127101, 127693-127698, 127700-127722, 127883-127885;</p> <p>33 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127207, 127209, 127210, 127213-127215, 127217, 127221, 127222, 127228, 127723-127744, 127897;</p> <p>11 isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127664, 127358, 127955-127963;</p> <p>38 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127167-127173, 127887-127890, 127964-127990;</p> <p>24 isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127505, 127270, 127276, 127286, 127288, 127295-127297, 127891, 127894, 127991-128004;</p> <p>14 isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127665, 127892, 127893, 128005-128015.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>Seven isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127469, 127470, 128222-128226;</p> <p>Four isolated M2: MGPT-PU 128228-128230, 128285;</p> <p>Three isolated M3: MGPT-PU 128231, 128232, 128290;</p> <p>10 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127466, 127860- 127862, 128233-128238;</p> <p>Six isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127475, 127863, 128313, 128318, 128319, 128333;</p> <p>Three isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127864, 128340, 128341.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF92FFFCB986A8B3FF6317DD	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF95FFFCBB9FAF6DFBE91019.text	72738785FF95FFFCBB9FAF6DFBE91019.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Apodemus atavus Heller 1936	<div><p>Apodemus atavus Heller, 1936</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>One isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127777;</p> <p>Two isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127463, 127778.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>Two isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127112, 127848; Three isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127247, 127951, 127952;</p> <p>Seven isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127177, 127178, 127180, 127181, 127199, 127849, 127953; One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127954. MCC 5</p> <p>Nine isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127502, 127503, 127086, 127659, 127895, 128146-128148, 128155; Three isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127227, 127660, 128149;</p> <p>Four isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127661, 127902, 128150, 128151;</p> <p>Six isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127159, 127898, 127899, 128152-128154;</p> <p>Four isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127504, 127662, 127900, 128156;</p> <p>Two isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127663, 128157.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>One isolated M1: MGPT-PU 128240;</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128241;</p> <p>Two isolated m2: MGPT-PU 128316, 128332; One isolated m3: MGPT-PU 128344.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF95FFFCBB9FAF6DFBE91019	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF95FFFCB9ACA930FBE91612.text	72738785FF95FFFCB9ACA930FBE91612.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eliomys intermedius Friant 1953	<div><p>Eliomys aff. intermedius Friant, 1953</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>Two isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127495, 128346.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>One isolated P4: MGPT-PU 128348;</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128217;</p> <p>One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127368.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>Three isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127048, 128270, 128349;</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128269.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF95FFFCB9ACA930FBE91612	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF95FFFDB9F3AF2DFDD817F2.text	72738785FF95FFFDB9F3AF2DFDD817F2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Muscardinus vireti Hugueney & Mein 1965	<div><p>Muscardinus vireti Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>Two isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127415, 127487; One isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127375;</p> <p>Two isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127383, 127413; One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127417.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>One isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127481;</p> <p>Two isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127486, 127515;</p> <p>Four isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127511, 127484, 127488, 127489;</p> <p>Four isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127482, 127483, 127485, 127512;</p> <p>Three isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127490, 127513, 127514.</p> <p>MCC 5 One maxillary fragment bearing M1 and M2: MGPT-PU 128175; Two isolated P4: MGPT-PU 127604, 128169; 13 isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127389, 127392, 127394, 127396, 127404, 127406, 127411, 128170-128174, 128176; 10 isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127391, 127403, 127409, 127410, 127606, 127923, 128177-128180; Three isolated M3: MGPT-PU 127607, 128181, 128182; One isolated p4: MGPT-PU 127608; 14 isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127388, 127393, 127402, 127412, 127609, 128190-128198; 17 isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127395, 127401, 127405, 127407, 127610, 127924, 128183-128185, 128199-128206; Six isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127390, 127397, 127408, 127611, 128186, 128187.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>Three isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127479, 128260, 128261;</p> <p>Two isolated M2: MGPT-PU 128262, 128266; Two isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128264, 128265; Two isolated m2: MGPT-PU 128263, 128267.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF95FFFDB9F3AF2DFDD817F2	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF94FFFDBBD9AF4DFDBA1510.text	72738785FF94FFFDBBD9AF4DFDBA1510.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney & Mein 1965	<div><p>Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>Two isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127496, 127510.</p> <p>MCC7</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128351.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF94FFFDBBD9AF4DFDBA1510	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF94FFFDB855AAB6FBE5179C.text	72738785FF94FFFDB855AAB6FBE5179C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glis minor Kowalski 1956	<div><p>Glis minor Kowalski, 1956</p> <p>MCC 3</p> <p>One isolated P4: MGPT-PU 127419;</p> <p>One isolated M1: MGPT-PU 127418;</p> <p>One isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127416;</p> <p>One isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127414.</p> <p>MCC 4</p> <p>One isolated P4: MGPT-PU 127494;</p> <p>One isolated M2: MGPT-PU 127491;</p> <p>Two isolated p4: MGPT-PU 127480, 127516; One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 127493;</p> <p>One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 127492.</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>One isolated P4: MGPT-PU 127400;</p> <p>Three isolated M1: MGPT-PU 128188, 128189, 127399;</p> <p>Three isolated M2: MGPT-PU 128207bis, 128208, 128209;</p> <p>Four isolated p4: MGPT-PU 127398, 127925, 128210, 128211;</p> <p>Three isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128207, 128212, 128214;</p> <p>One isolated m2: MGPT-PU 128213;</p> <p>One isolated m3: MGPT-PU 127387.</p> <p>MCC 7</p> <p>One isolated M1: MGPT-PU 128239.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF94FFFDB855AAB6FBE5179C	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF94FFFDB84BAEACFBE91673.text	72738785FF94FFFDB84BAEACFBE91673.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sciurus warthae Sulimski 1964	<div><p>Sciurus warthae Sulimski, 1964</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>One isolated M3: MGPT-PU128219;</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU 128221.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF94FFFDB84BAEACFBE91673	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
72738785FF94FFFEB981AFCAFCCB159F.text	72738785FF94FFFEB981AFCAFCCB159F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pliopetaurista pliocaenica (Deperet 1897)	<div><p>Pliopetaurista pliocaenica (Depéret, 1897)</p> <p>MCC 5</p> <p>One isolated M3: MGPT-PU128347;</p> <p>One isolated m1: MGPT-PU128218.</p> <p>APPENDIX 2. — List of Neogene, Quaternary and extant rodent species from different localities of Eurasia analyzed for comparative purposes.</p> <p>Apocricetus barrierei (Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970) from Chabrier (UCBL).</p> <p>Pseudocricetus kormosi (Schaub, 1930) from Polgardi (UCBL).</p> <p>Neocricetodon lavocati Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu (UCBL).</p> <p>Neocricetodon browni (Daxner-Höck, 1992) from Maramena (IVAU).</p> <p>Necricetodon seseae Aguilar, Calvet &amp; Michaux, 1995 from Arquillo 1 (UCBL).</p> <p>Neocricetodon fahlbuschi Bachmayer &amp; Wilson, 1970 from Kohfidich (UCBL).</p> <p>Paraethomys meini (Michaux, 1969) from Sète, Maritsa, Teruel, Caravaca (UCBL) and Brisighella (UNIFI).</p> <p>Paraethomys abaigari Adrover, Mein &amp; Moissenet, 1988 from Villalba Alta Río (UCBL).</p> <p>Occitanomys adroveri (Thaler, 1966) from Los Mansuetos (UCBL).</p> <p>Occitanomys brailloni Michaux, 1969 from Layna (UCBL) and Rema Marmara (IVAU).</p> <p>Occitanomys montheleni Aguilar, Calvet &amp; Michaux, 1986 from Mont Hélène and Serrat d’en Vaquer (UCBL).</p> <p>Centralomys benericettii (De Giuli, 1989) from Brisighella 1 and 25 (UNIFI) and from Verduno (MGPT-PU).</p> <p>Castillomys magnus Sen, 1977 from Çalta (UCBL).</p> <p>Castillomys gracilis van de Weerd, 1976 from Caravaca (IVAU, UCBL).</p> <p>Micromys bendai van de Weerd, 1979 from Kardia and Ptolemais 1 (IVAU).</p> <p>Micromys steffensi van de Weerd, 1979 from Kardia (IVAU).</p> <p>Apodemus gudrunae van de Weerd,1976 from Orrios, Valdecebro 3 (IVAU), Arquillo 1, Villastar (UCBL), Brisighella (UNIFI), Verduno (MGPT-PU).</p> <p>Apodemus gorafensis Ruiz Bustos, Sesé, Dabrio, Peña &amp; Padial, 1984 from Gorafe 4, Celadas 9 and Purcal 4 (UCBL).</p> <p>Apodemus atavus Heller, 1936 from Gundersheim 4, Csarnota (IVAU), Concud Pueblo 3, Maramena, Mont Hélène, Perpignan (UCBL).</p> <p>Rhagapodemus primaevus Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu (IVAU, UCBL) and Maramena (UCBL).</p> <p>Rhagapodemus frequens Kretzoi, 1959 from Seynes, Layna and Sète (UCBL).</p> <p>Rhagapodemus hautimagnensis Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970 from Mont Hélène (UCBL).</p> <p>Rhagapodemus ballesioi Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970 from Mont Hélène and Perpignan (UCBL).</p> <p>Rhagapodemus vandeweerdi de Bruijn &amp; van der Meulen, 1975 from Maritsa (IVAU).</p> <p>Eliomys truci Mein &amp; Michaux, 1970 from Hautimagne (UCBL).</p> <p>Eliomys intermedius Friant, 1953 from Sète (IVAU).</p> <p>Muscardinus vireti Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu (UCBL).</p> <p>Muscardinus davidi Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu (UCBL).</p> <p>Glirulus lissiensis Hugueney &amp; Mein, 1965 from Lissieu (UCBL).</p> <p>Glis minor Kowalski, 1956 from Podlesice (IVAU).</p> <p>Glis sackdillingensis (Heller, 1930) from Schernfeld (IVAU).</p> <p>Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 from Torino (MGPT- PU).</p> <p>Sciurus warthae Sulimski, 1964 from Monte la Mesa (UNIFE).</p> <p>Sciurus magistri (van den Hoek Ostende &amp; Reumer, 2011) from Tegelen (RMNH).</p> <p>Hylopetes lepidus Horsfield, 1822 from Loang Speam (Cambodia) (UCBL) and from South-East Asia (IVAU).</p> <p>Neopetes macedoniensis (Bouwens &amp; de Bruijn, 1986) from Maramena (IVAU).</p> <p>Pliopetaurista dehneli (Depéret, 1897) from Hautimagne (UCBL).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/72738785FF94FFFEB981AFCAFCCB159F	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	Colombero, Simone;Pavia, Giulio;Carnevale, Giorgio	Colombero, Simone, Pavia, Giulio, Carnevale, Giorgio (2014): Messinian rodents from Moncucco Torinese, NW Italy: palaeobiodiversity and biochronology. Geodiversitas 36 (3): 421-475, DOI: 10.5252/g2014n3a4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/g2014n3a4
