Petenyia dubia Bachmayer and Wilson, 1970

Rzebik-Kowalska, Barbara & Rekovets, Leonid I., 2016, New data on Eulipotyphla (Insectivora, Mammalia) from the Late Miocene to the Middle Pleistocene of Ukraine, Palaeontologia Electronica 12 (1), pp. 1-31 : 23-24

Petenyia dubia Bachmayer and Wilson, 1970

Figure 10.3-10.4

Material. Verkhnya Krynitsa 2 ( MN 11/ MN 12), left fragment of mandible with m2 and condyloid process. MNI = 1. Catalogue number 29/2/14. Lobkove ( MN 12), left M1. MNI = 1. Catalogue number 29/3/14.

Description. The M1 ( Figure 10.4 ) is quadrate in occlusal view. It is characterised by a lack of posterior emargination (hardly any posterior emargination is present). The protocone and the very small hypocone are connected forming a continuous endoloph. In occlusal view the m2 is relatively short and wide. Its buccal cingulid is broad and well-pronounced, the lingual cingulid is also well developed but more flat. The tooth is extremely worn so its remaining characters are not visible. The mandible is high and its lower margin is convex. The coronoid process is broken so only the lower deep part of the internal temporal fossa is present. It is closed by a horizontal bar. The interarticular area of the condyle ( Figure 10.3 ) is low and wide. There are two mandibular foramina below the posterior corner of the internal temporal fossa.

Measurements. See Table 11.

Systematic Position and Distribution. The lack of posterior emargination and the presence of a very small hypocone which forms the endoloph with the protocone in M1 and the nearly quadrate m 2 in occlusal view with large cingulids, as well as a comparatively high horizontal ramus of the mandible, internal temporal fossa with horizontal bar, and large condyloid process with a broad interarticular area show that these specimens should be placed in the tribe Blarinellini . Its morphology is very similar to the morphology of Petenyia species, especially to P. dubia from Podlesice. The similar in morphology and size M1 of Alloblarinella Storch, 1995 differs by a higher and straighter (without a depression between the protocone and hypocone) endoloph and the base of the paracone and especially the metacone placed more lingually, close to the high endoloph. The measurements agree with the measurements of P. dubia (see Table 10).

The age of the specimen also speaks for Petenyia dubia . It was described by Bachmayer and Wilson, in 1970 from Kohfidish in Austria, a locality dated to MN11. It is also listed from several European localities dated from the Late Miocene (MN9, Rudabánya in Hungary Kordos, 1991) to the Early Pliocene (MN14) and the Late Miocene (MN11–MN12) from Turkey ( Furió et al., 2014). Petenyia cf. dubia was already mentioned from the Late Miocene (MN11) Ukrainian locality Frunzovka 2 ( Rzebik-Kowalska and Nesin, 2010).

Figures

FIGURE 10. 1, Beremendia fissidens from Popovo 1, right I1, in anterior view (c.n. 29/I/12/1); 2, cf. Beremendia minor from Verkhnya Krynitsa 1, fragment of left mandible with proximal part of i1 in buccal view (c.n. 29/1/13/1); Petenyia dubia from Verkhnya Krynitsa 2 (3) and Lobkove (4): 3, left condyloid process, posterior view (c.n. 29/2/14/1); 4, left M1, occlusal view (c.n. 29/3/14/1). 5, Zelceina sp. from Verkhnya Krynitsa 2, fragment of left maxillae with M1-M2, occlusal view (c.n. 29/2/16/1).