Nesophontes sp.

Orihuela, Johanset, Orozco, Leonel Pérez, Álvarez Licourt, Jorge L., Viera Muñoz, Ricardo A. & Barani, Candido Santana, 2020, Late Holocene land vertebrate fauna from Cueva de los Nesofontes, Western Cuba: Stratigraphy, chronology, diversity, and paleoecology, Palaeontologia Electronica (a 57) 23 (3), pp. 1-46 : 19-22

Nesophontes sp. cf. longirostris sensu Anthony, 1919

Figures 7.1–7.3 , 8.1–8.3 , 9.1–9.2

Material. Three specimens may represent this taxon: a near-complete skull, lacking the occipital and petrosals (MNHNCu field no. 132), and two possible hemimandibles (MNHNCu, field no. 121 and 1428). The first skull and mandible are from layer E (level II), and the last (no. 1428) was from layer H (lower level III) .

Description. Large species of Nesophontes , like N. major ( Figures 6-9 ), but with a tubular and more elongated rostrum, wider diastemata between upper and lower canine and first two premolars. Skull 132 and dentary 121 were slightly mineralized, and dentary 1428 partially mineralized. Measurements are provided in Table 5.

The skull of N. longirostris is most like that of Nesophontes major ( Figures 6-9 ) but differs in being slightly larger, with a slenderer and more elongated rostrum, more parallel postorbital, with a wide diastema between the upper canine and the first two maxillary premolars (Pm1–Pm3). The is also a wider separation between the last incisor and the canine. In N. major , the rostrum is broader, more U-shaped, and wider at the level of the canines. The inclination angle of the nasal is more pronounced in N. longirostris than N. major ( Figures 6-9 ).

Nesophontes longirostris shows an incipient tapering at the level of the first and second maxillary premolars, not present in N. major (including juvenile individuals). The orientation and size of the premolars in N. micrus are nearly parallel to the axis of the toothrow and of nearly equal size (see Figure 8.1-3 ). In N. major , the premolars are always crowded, oriented obliquely from the toothrow, and the first premolar is always larger than the second ( Figure 8.4-5 ). In N. longirostris , the orientation of the premolars is slightly oblique, despite their wide separation. In N. longirostris the Paracone is reduced in the third upper molar (M3) but is smaller and slimmer than M1 and M2. M1 is slightly smaller than M2 and very subtriangular in shape. In N. major the M3 is more robust and wider (more quadrate), with a slightly higher Paracone, and the M1 is stubbier than the M2, with a less pronounced Metastyle ( Figures 6-9 ).

In this sense, N. longirostris seems more akin to N. major than to N. micrus . Quantitatively, the two species are also most similar in most cranial linear measurements ( Table 5). Nesophontes longirostris is slightly larger in skull, palatal, and dental length, likely as a function of the wider spacing between the premolars.

The dentary of Nesophontes major (both supposed males and females) are larger than micrus in several linear dimensions: total length of the dentary, the maximum height of coronoid process, and the maximum height of the mandibular ramus under m1–m2 ( Table 5, Figure 9 ). In general, the dentary and lower dentition of N. major is more robust and marked than N. micrus . The dentary of N. major has a thicker ramus, with a more pronounced curve at the masseteric/digastric region (thinner, and much less curved in N. micrus ; the muscle scar is less pronounced). The shape of the coronoid process is wider, broader, with more pronounced masseteric fossa on the lateral face, and deeper temporalis/pterygoid fossae on the medial face (subtriangular, thinner, less marked or shallow, and more restricted in N. micrus ). The canine of N. major is an un-grooved premolaliform, with a small cingulum and more triangular cusp, and smaller base (wider base and wider triangularwider shear surface outline in N. micrus ). In the molars, the angle between the paraconid and metaconid, as seen on the lateral aspect, is more closed, with a wider commissure (more open and lower in N. micrus , with a reduction in cingulum development). The scar of the mandibular symphysis in N. major is more pronounced and longer than in N. micrus . In this sense, the supposed mandible of N. longirostris is nearly identical to N. major ( Figure 9.1 ), but with the diastemata present between pm1 and pm2 ( Figure 9.2-3 ). Based on these qualitative and quantitative data, N. longirostris is tentatively revalidated here. Further detailed data is out of the scope of this paper and will be further discussed elsewhere.

Taxonomic remarks. H.E. Anthony described this species based on an incomplete skull (AMNH 17626; Figure 6.3 , 7.3 , 8.3 , 9.3 ) from a cave deposit in Daiquirí, southeastern Cuba . He distinguished it from N. micrus by its longer and slenderer rostrum, plus a “distinct diastemata between the canine and the first premolars” (Anthony, 1919, p. 634). Anthony also predicted that such diastema would be found in the dentary. This diastema resulted in a larger measurement of 3.2 mm taken between the posterior border of the maxillary canine and the anterior border of the premolar, in comparison to other specimens he studied (Anthony, 1919). Since Morgan (1977) and subsequent revisors considered N. longirostris invalid and a synonym of either N. micrus or N. major (Condis et al., 2005; Silva Taboada et al., 2007; Rzebik-Kowalska and Woloszyn, 2012). Despite these evaluations and considering the intra and interspecific variation of the genus (JO unpublished data; Buckley et al., 2020), the characters displayed by these specimens seem to suggest otherwise.

Our specimens, both skulls and dentaries, have the supposed diagnostic diastemata, elongated rostrum, and measurements that exceed the observed variation in both N. micrus and N. major studied from several locations in Cuba (>720 hemimandibles and>150 skulls; plus over 1030 specimens from this assemblage alone), in addition to Anthony’s Daiquirí series at the AMNH. Moreover, adding the discovery of another complete skull specimen (MNHNCu, field no. 324; Figures 6.2 , 7.2 and 8.2 ) with similar morphology and measurements from Cueva del Gato Jíbaro, ~ 18 km east from the assemblage described here. This last specimen is associated with the archaeological kitchen midden dated to 860 ± 30 years before the present (Orihuela et al., 2020a).

Figures

FIGURE 6. Nesophontes skulls on dorsal view. 1-3, Nesophontes cf. longirostris; 3 is the holotype (AMNH 17626). 4-5, Nesophontes major. Small lines indicate discrete characters discussed in the text. Note the more elongated rostrum and wider gap between upper premolars in N. longirostris and the crowding in N. major.

FIGURE 7. Nesophontes skulls on ventral view. 1-3, Nesophontes cf. longirostris, 3 is the holotype (AMNH 17626). 4-5, Nesophontes major. Small lines indicate discrete characters discussed in the text.

FIGURE 8. Nesophontes skulls on lateral view. 1-3, Nesophontes cf. longirostris, 3 is the holotype (AMNH 17626). 4-5, Nesophontes major. Small lines indicate discrete characters discussed in the text.

FIGURE 9. Nesophontes left hemimandibles 1-2, Nesophontes cf. longirostris. 3, Nesophontes major (image inverted).