Eomys Schlosser, 1884
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5252/g2014n4a4 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4837404 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D6987B-4455-B109-FC9F-1542FB3AE47F |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Eomys Schlosser, 1884 |
| status |
|
Genus Eomys Schlosser, 1884
TYPE SPECIES. — Eomys zitteli Schlosser, 1884 by monotypy.
REMARKS
Ŋe few eomyid teeth are assigned to Eomys based on their uninterrupted mure or ectolophid, contrary to Eomyodon Engesser, 1987 , Rhodanomys Depéret & Douxami, 1902 or Pseudotheridomys Schlosser, 1926 , and on the well-marked cusps contrary to the three latter genera.
Eomys aff. zitteli Schlosser, 1884 ( Fig. 14 View FIG A-D)
MATERIAL AND MEASUREMENTS (in mm). — One P4 SPV 180: 0.92 × 0.99; one M1-2 SPV 181: 0.86 × 1.08; one p4 SPV 185: 1.00 × 0.89; one ml-2 SPV 184:1.04 × 1.09; one digested lower tooth row m1-m3 SPV 183.
DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION
Ŋese isolated teeth are brachydont. P4 has a weak antesinus, a reduced anterosyncline due to the direct connection of the paracone nearly to the labial end of the anteroloph, and a short mesoloph. On M1-2, the protoloph is present and the anterosyncline longer than in P4. Ŋe mesoloph is halflong.
Teeth are of greater size than those of Eomys antiquus Aymard, 1853 . Ŋe size of the two molars falls into the variations of the small population of Eomys aff. zitteli from Mas-de-Pauffié (Comte & Vianey-Liaud 1987), the two premolars being a little smaller. Ŋe morphology of the teeth of Saint Privat-des-Vieux is also close to that seen in Eomys zitteli .
A fragment of a left dentary bearing m1-3 is much damaged, pecularly m1. It belongs to a species of smaller size (notably its width) than Eomys zitteli . Ŋe measurements (m1: [0.99 × 0.71 mm]; m2: [0.97 × 0.90 mm]; m3: [0.81 × 0.83 mm]) are of the same order as those of the corresponding teeth in Eomys antiquus and Eomys minor Comte & Vianey-Liaud, 1987 . Ŋe occurrence of a form close to Eomys zitteli (supposed to be derived from Eomys antiquus ) at Saint Privat-des-Vieux as well as at Mas-de-Pauffié, would lead to refer this small form to another species, Eomys minor . However, the presence of a long mesolophid on m2 does not match the morphology (no mesolophids) of the type of Eomys minor . As the variability of the latter is obviously unknown, we could refer the specimen of Saint Privat-des-Vieux to Eomys minor , known in the locality Belgarric1 (Tarn-et- Garonne, MP 25) and La Blache ( Maridet et al. 2010), but it could better represent an extreme variant of E. aff. zitteli .
However, new eomyids were collected in Mas-de- Pauffié:two upper teeth (M2 [0.79 × 1.09 mm] and M3 [0.77 × 0.98 mm]; Fig. 14E, F View FIG ) can be more clearly referred to Eomys minor . Ŋeir sizes are compatible with that of the lower teeth of E. minor . Ŋe mesoloph is short on M2, and this morphology can correspond to lower molars without mesolophid; such upper teeth are also described from La Blache.
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.