Geotrypus copernici, Rzebik-Kowalska, 2014

Rzebik-Kowalska, Barbara, 2014, Review of the Pliocene and Pleistocene Talpidae (Soricomorpha, Mammalia) of Poland, Palaeontologia Electronica (26 A) 26, pp. 1-26 : 8-9

Genus? SCALOPOIDES Wilson, 1960 ? Scalopoides sp.

Figure 2.7-8

1980? Geotrypus copernici Skoczeń ; (partim),

Skoczeń, p. 414, figs. 2, 3.

1994 “ Geotrypus copernici ” Skoczeń ; (partim),

Rzebik-Kowalska, p. 80, 90, 91, 93.

2005 Geotrypus? copernici Skoczeń ; (partim),

Rzebik-Kowalska, p. 129, 131.

2009 Scalopoides sp. =? G. copernici Skoczeń ;

(partim), Rzebik-Kowalska, p. 8, 24, 50.

Material. Kadzielnia 1. Four fragmentary humeri (two right and two left). MNI = 2, catalogue number MF/1008. Zamkowa Dolna Cave A. Three humeri (two left). MNI = 2, catalogue number Mf/1010. They are housed in the collection of the ISEAPAS in Kraków.

In comparison to the material of Skoczeń (1980), two humeri are lacking in Zamkowa Dolna Cave A.

Description. Done by Skoczeń (1980, p. 418) in the chapter on? Geotrypus copernici nov. sp. The author noticed the elongated and narrow shaft of the humerus and the proximal position of its teres tubercle.

Systematic position and distribution. The abovementioned humeri together with mandibles and upper and lower teeth were described by Skoczeń (1980) as belonging to? Geotrypuys copernici . However, Storch and Qiu (1983) and Dahlmann (2001) questioned the inclusion of this material to the genus Geotrypus Lavocat, 1951 . They wrote that the humeri rather resembled the bones of Scalopoides described by Wilson (1960) from the Early Miocene of the USA and of Yanshuella found in China (the Late Miocene or Early Pliocene) than the European Geotrypus .

In general, however, they seem to be somewhat more slender than humeri of Yanshuella . The width of their shaft (DW) equals 2.24 – 2.45 mm (n=5) compared to Scalopoides , 2.01 – 2.33 mm (n=14), and Yanshuella , 2.50 – 2.90 mm (n=7). As their morphology points to close affinities with the genus Scalopoides (see Skoczeń, 1980, p. 421) the specimens cited above have been tentatively ascribed to? Scalopoides sp.

It is, however, clear that these humeri cannot be united with teeth and mandibles described below as Skoczenia copernici and previously by Skoczeń (1980) under the name of “ G.” copernici . Their morphology does not resemble the morphology of the humerus in Talpini moles, while the number and the morphology of teeth certainly places them in the Talpini . Moreover the humeri described above cannot be united with teeth of Skoczenia copernici because they are too small. They are even smaller than humeri of Talpa minor Freudenberg, 1914 present in Kadzielnia 1and Zamkowa Dolna Cave A, while the teeth are as big as teeth of Talpa europaea Linnaeus, 1758 and also much more robust. As the humeri are incomplete (the heads and “scalopine ridge” are missing) they are only tentatively included in Scalopoides .

It is, however, very strange that as in the case of Skoczenia copernici in which humeri are lacking there are no teeth in the material which could be united with humeri of? Scalopoides sp. In the studied material there are only teeth and humeri of much smaller forms such as Quyania and Neurotrichus and of the genus Talpa - Talpa minor and Talpa fossilis Pétenyi, 1864 .

In Europe moles of the genus Scalopoides were reported in older localities in France (La Grive Saint-Alban, MN7/8, Hutchison,1974) and in Spain (Hostalets de Pierola Inferior, MN7/8, Hostalets de Pierola Superior, MN9, and Trinchera norte Autopista, MN10 ( Van den Hoek Ostende and Furió, 2005).