Class Mammalia Linneaus, 1758
Order Rodentia Bowdich, 1821
Family Gliridae Thomas, 1897
Genus Miodyromys Kretzoi, 1943
Miodyromys asiamediae nov. sp.
Figure 2a–f
Holotype left m2, IVPP V18129.6 (1.21 × 1.17 mm, Fig. 2f)
Type locality Early Miocene section XJ 200604, county of Habahe, northern Xinjiang.
Etymology Named Miodyromys of Central Asia (latin Asia Media)
Referred specimens All together 8 cheek teeth: left P4, IVPP V18129.1 (0.89 × 1.11 mm, Fig. 2a); right P4, IVPP V18129.2 (0.90 × 1.19 mm, Fig. 2b); left M1, IVPP V18129.3 (1.16 × 1.43 mm, Fig. 2c); left p4, IVPP V18129.4 (1.00 × 0.87 mm, Fig. 2d); left p4, IVPP V18129.5 (1.02 × 0.92 mm, Fig. 2e); two extremely damaged dp4/p4,IVPP V18129.7 and IVPP V18129.8.
Diagnosis Middle-sized Miodyromys with the following unique combination of characters: the metacone is better developed than the paracone in upper cheek teeth; P4 is large relatively to M1 and have a U-shaped trigon; M1 is proportionally wide (L/W = 0.81) with the anterior centroloph longer than the posterior one, and a well-developed extra ridge between the protoloph and anterior centroloph; the extra ridge between the posterior centroloph and metaloph is absent; in m2, both the extra ridges between the anterolophid and the metalophid and between the mesolophid and the posterolophid are well developed, but the central extra ridges are absent; lower premolars are noticeably elongated (mean L/W = 1.13), and two roots merged into a single one (with two pulp cavities).
Differential diagnosis In the Early Miocene of China, the new species differs from Miodyromys orientalis in being larger but having proportionally smaller upper premolars, and in missing the ornamentation on the lingual wall of upper cheek teeth. By comparison with the species known in the Early Miocene of Europe, the new species differs from Miodyromys biradiculus Mayr, 1979 in having a well-developed extra ridge between anterolophid and metalophid in m2. The new species also differs from Miodyromys praecox Wu, 1993 in having proportionally wider upper and lower molars; and in having a longer extra ridge between the anterolophid and the metalophid and missing an extra ridge between the centrolophid and the metalophid in the lower molar. Differs from Miodyromys vagus Mayr, 1979 in having a simple morphology, larger premolars, less numerous and shorter extra ridges in upper and lower molars. Differs from Miodyromys aegercii (Baudelot, 1972) in having a shorter posterior centroloph and in missing the extra ridge between the posterior centroloph and the metaloph in upper molars; in addition, it lacks the extra ridge between the centrolopid and metalophid.
Description Cheek teeth with thick crests and concave occlusal surfaces. The P4 is wider than long, with well-developed paracone, protocone and metacone, the metacone being more developed than the paracone. The trigon is U shaped. The anteroloph is short and almost centrally located. The protoloph is interrupted in one tooth (Fig. 2b), or constricted at the base of the paracone (Fig. 2a). The centroloph is isolated in one tooth (Fig. 2a), longer and slightly connected to the basis of the paracone in the other one (Fig. 2b), no extra ridge exists. The roots are only partially preserved, but the remains suggest three roots, the two labial ones being possibly merged together.
The M1 is wider than long with a strongly concave occlusal surface. The paracone and metacone constitute well-developed cusps, whereas the protocone is elongated in the same line as the posteroloph. The metacone is more developed than the paracone. The anteroloph is long and isolated, whereas the protoloph, metaloph and posteroloph are connected to the endoloph. Both centrolophs are present, the anterior one being longer and thicker than the posterior one. The extra ridge between the protoloph and anterior centroloph is as well developed as the posterior centroloph; the posterior extra ridge is absent. The M1 has three roots, two labial roots and one large lingual root.
Both p4 (one being damaged) have a slightly concave occlusal surface. The posterolophid and mesolophid are well developed with a small posterior extra ridge reduced to one or two points in between. In both teeth, the endolophid is absent. One tooth has a complete metalophid joining the protoconid and metaconid but an interrupted anterolophid (Fig. 2e), and the other tooth has a complete anterolophid but the metalophid is interrupted and does not reach the protoconid (Fig. 2d). Two roots merged into a single one (with two pulp cavities).
The m2 is longer than wide; all cuspids are well developed and differentiated from the main crests. Both extra ridges between the anterolophid and the metalophid, and between the mesolophid and the posterolophid are long, even slightly undulated for the posterior one; the central extra ridges are absent. The anterolophid almost reaches the protoconid, leaving a narrow opening at the antero-labial extremity of the anterior valley. The centrolophid is long and clearly separated from the endolophid by a constriction. The endolophid is interrupted between the centrolophid and entoconid. The roots are not preserved, but their marks at the bottom of the crown suggest three roots: two anterior and one large posterior.
Remarks The thick crests of the new species together with the absence of endoloph justify its ascription to Miodyromys rather than Microdyromys de Bruijn, 1966 or Eliomys Wagner, 1840. Furthermore, the protoloph and metaloph separately connected to the protocone and absence of anterior extra ridge reaching the paracone in the new species also exclude an ascription to the genus Peridyromys Stehlin and Schaub, 1951. This identification confirms the presence of Miodyromys in the Early Miocene of China (Qiu et al. 2006).
Qiu (1996, p74) described four teeth of Miodyromys sp. from the Moergen II locality. The size of these specimens is similar to those described above, but the morphology displays some noticeable differences: one upper molar has a metaloph which does not reach the metacone; the other upper molar has a posterior centroloph longer than the anterior one and a well-developed extra ridge between the posterior centroloph and the metaloph whereas the one between the protoloph and anterior centroloph is absent; the p4 has no connection between the metaconid and the protoconid, and the posterior extra ridge is well developed. Keeping in mind that we do not know much about the morphological variability of M. asiamediae and Miodyromys sp. it is not possible to state so far if they are somehow related.
Genus Microdyromys de Bruijn, 1966
Microdyromys aff. orientalis Wu, 1986
Figure 2g
Referred specimen One left m1, IVPP V 18130 (1.09 × 1.03 mm)
Description m2 with low crown and concave occlusal surface. The shape of the tooth in occlusal view is slightly longer than wide (L/W = 1.058). The labial cuspids are well developed, but the lingual ones are faint and integrated in the crests. The anterolophid joins the protoconid with a thin crest that closes the anterior valley antero-labially. The extra ridge between the anterolophid and the metalophid is long and the metalophid merges with the metaconid. The centrolophid starts from the metaconid and almost joins the mesoconid. The endolophid is interrupted but a cingulum remains, partially closing the central valley lingually. The extra ridge between the mesolophid and the posterolophid is long and slightly curved forwardly in its labial extremity. The roots are not preserved.
Remarks The size of this specimen is similar to the m2 of Microdyromys wuae described by Qiu (1996, p71) from the Middle Miocene of Moergen. However, the morphology is simpler in missing extra ridges anterior and posterior to the centrolophid. Furthermore, the m2 has a complete centrolophid whereas it is interrupted for M. wuae. In contrast, the morphology of the above specimen described is similar to M. orientalis Wu, 1986, but it is slightly larger than all the lower molars described by Wu (1986) and with slightly different proportions (m1 mean L/W = 1.019).
Compared to the species of Microdyromys known in the Early Miocene of Europe, our specimen is noticeably larger than M. monspeliensis Aguilar, 1977 and M. hildebrandti Werner, 1994, but its measurements fall within the size range of M. koenigswaldi de Bruijn, 1966, and M. legidensis Daams 1981. The morphology also fits within the variability of M. koenigswaldi de Bruijn, 1966, and M. legidensis Daams 1981. However, the m1 s of M. koenigswaldi and M. legidensis tend to be wider than long according to the measurements provided by Wu (1993) on the German material: mean L/W = 0.974 for M. koenigswaldi from Erkertshofen 2, and 0.989 for M. legidensis from Stubersheim 3. We consequently tentatively ascribe this specimen to an affinitive form of the species M. orientalis, waiting for more material to secure the identification.
Genus Eliomys Wagner, 1840
Eliomys? sp.
Figure 2h
Referred specimen One left M2, IVPP V18131 (1.21 × 1.36 mm)
Description M2 with a low crown and a strongly concave occlusal surface. The morphology is quite simple with thin crests and large valleys. The paracone is antero-posteriorly elongated and rounded, whereas the metacone forms a well-developed cusp at the labial extremity of the metaloph. The endoloph is complete and higher than the other crests. The anterior centroloph is long but the posterior one is short and very weakly developed, limited to a low fold of the enamel starting from the metacone. The roots are not preserved.
Remarks Ellerman (1941) stated in his diagnosis of Dryomys that the morphology of its teeth is very similar to the one of Eliomys, except that Dryomys upper check teeth are less concave and with a more developed centrolophs. Prodryomys Mayr, 1979 also has a less concave occlusal surface, often misses the endoloph in upper molars, and has thicker crests compared to Eliomys. According to these differences, we tentatively ascribe the above described specimen to the genus Eliomys, which would be the first occurrence of the genus in Asia and the earliest in Eurasia. However, based on this single specimen it is not possible to secure the taxonomic identification. Eliomys is known from several fossil localities in Europe, mostly from the Late Miocene onward; however, Eliomys
truci Mein and Michaux, 1970 has been recognized in the Middle Miocene of Spain (Daams and Freudenthal 1988) and Eliomys reductus Mayr, 1979 in the Middle Miocene of Germany (Mayr 1979; Heissig 1989). Our specimen displays morphology similar to E. truci but is slightly larger and longer in proportion (L/W = 0.89), and it also differs from E. reductus Mayr, 1979 in having a long anterior centroloph but a weakly developed posterior one.
Family Eomyidae Winge, 1887
Genus Asianeomys Wu et al., 2006
Asianeomys aff. engesseri Wu et al., 2006
Figure 3a–e
Referred specimen Left DP4, IVPP V18132.1 (1.03 × 1.08 mm, Fig. 3a); right DP4, IVPP V18132.2 (1.00 × 1.02 mm, Fig. 3b); right P4, IVPP V18132.3 (0.94 × 1.02 mm, Fig. 3c); right M1/2, IVPP V18132.4 (1.11 × 1.21 mm, Fig. 3d); left M3, IVPP V18132.5 (0.86 × 1.14 mm, Fig. 3e).
Description All cheek teeth have massive cusps, a brachyodont morphology with buno-lophodont pattern and a concave occlusal surface. The entoloph is connected to the posterior end of the protocone so that syncline II is longer than syncline I.
Both DP4 have a well-developed labial anteroloph but no lingual one; the mesolophs are weak and oriented forwardly. The hypocone is more lingually located than the protocone. One of the DP4 has an interrupted protoloph (Fig. 3b). The DP4 have three roots.
The P4 has no anteroloph, the mesoloph is long and reach the paracone. The longitudinal crest is interrupted between the mesoloph and the protoloph. The posteroloph is clearly differentiated from the hypocone by a constriction at its lingual extremity. The P4 has three roots.
The M1/2 has a higher and more developed labial wall than the lingual one. The metaloph is oblique and connected very anteriorly to the hypocone, delimiting a large fourth syncline. The posteroloph is short and the posterior syncline is labially open. The M1/2 has three roots.
The M3 is linguo-labially elongated with a narrow central syncline and has small but well-developed hypocone and metacone. The labial anteroloph is long and thick, whereas the lingual one is weakly developed. The M3 has three roots.
Remarks These specimens display all the diagnostic characteristics of genus Asianeomys on the upper molars: a brachyodont with buno-lophodont pattern and a concave occlusal surface; syncline II longer than syncline I. The size of the teeth is similar to A. engesseri (larger than A. jungarensis Wu et al., 2006 and A. fahlbuschi Wu et al., 2006) and the morphology is also similar in having a transverse protoloph joining the anterior part of the protocone on M1/2, and the longitudinal crest complete on the upper molars. However, the specimens described above also slightly differ from A. engesseri in missing a posterior spur on the paracone, and not having the mesoloph convex anteriorly on M1/2. We consequently ascribe these specimens to an affine form of A. engesseri.
Asianeomys sp.
Figure 3f
Referred specimen Right M1/2, IVPP V18133 (1.21 × 1.33 mm)
Description M1/2 having very massive cusps and a slightly concave occlusal surface. The protoloph is slightly oblique backward so the small mesolophid end very close to the paracone. The longitudinal crest is interrupted between the mesoloph and the protocone. The posteroloph is short. The tooth has three roots.
Remarks The morphology is very close to Asianeomys aff. engesseri from this same locality. It is impossible to state for sure that this molar does not belong to the same population. However, for now, the size of tooth, the more massive cusps and the oblique protolophule lead us to treat this specimen as a different species.
Genus Keramidomys Hartenberger, 1966
Keramidomys sp.
Figure 3g, h
Referred specimen Right m1/2, IVPP V18134.1 (0.98 × 0.95 mm, Fig. 3g); left m3, V18134.2 (0.86 × 0.84 mm, Fig. 3h)
Description Both lower molars have narrow cuspids, the metaconid and entoconid being especially small and barely differentiable from the metalophid and the hypolophulid, respectively. The protoconid and hypoconid are oblique and located close to the labial border. The m1/2 has a long mesolophid and a strong lingual cingulum; however, the mesolophid does not reach this cingulum; the labial anterolophid is short; and the longitudinal crest is connected very labially, directly on the protoconid. The m3 has a long mesolophid merging with the lingual cingulum; the anterolophid extends up to the lingual side and labially contacts the lingual side of protocone. The m1/2 has four roots and the m3 three roots.
Remarks These two teeth are easily differentiable from Asianeomys by their more lophodont morphology; indeed the cuspids are narrow and elongated whereas there are more massive in Asianeomys species, including the Oligocene species A. asiaticus (Wang and Emry 1991) initially ascribed to Pseudotheridomys. Furthermore, both teeth differ from Asianeomys in having the protoconid and hypoconid more labially located (and an ectomesolophid connected very labially for the m1/2), and having a flat occlusal surface. These morphological characteristics together with the small size and the hypolophulid connected anteriorly to the hypoconid fit the diagnosis of genus Keramydomys, however more material will be necessary to allow an identification at the species level.
Eomyidae indet.
Figure 3i
Referred specimen Right M3, IVPP V 18135 (0.84 × 0.89 mm), with the postero-lingual border damaged.
Description Middle-sized M3 with a widely open sinus and a flat occlusal surface. Both anterolophs are well developed, the lingual one being even thicker and longer than the labial one. Even if the postero-lingual border of the tooth is damaged, it is possible to see that the hypocone is weakly developed. The connection between the protocone and the hypocone is located close to the lingual border of the tooth. The posteroloph starts from the middle of the metaloph and is relatively short, delimiting a very small posterosinus. A very short spur (possibly a weakly developed mesoloph) starts from the middle of the metaloph, opposite to the posteroloph. The roots are not preserved.
Remarks The very simple morphology of the M3, is uncommon among Neogene eomyids. Some M3 s of Keramidomys can display a quite simple morphology (e.g., Daxner-Höck and Höck 2009, fig. 4–12; Prieto 2010, fig. 1–247), but the triangular shape, the absence of mesoloph and the very short posteroloph seem to differentiate our specimen from those M3 of Keramidomys. However, this differentiation from Keramidomys is uncertain due to the noticeable variability of these characters. Some primitive Eomys from the Oligocene also display a very simple morphology of the M3 s (e.g., Maridet et al. 2010) which could also suggest that some Oligocene taxa, possibly belonging to a lineage of Eomys from China (Wang and Emry 1991), have subsisted in the Early Miocene.