taxonID	type	description	language	source
038987DA5360FFC3FF5AFEC9FBB7FE71.taxon	materials_examined	Type species. Sparassocynus bahiai Mercerat, 1898, Montehermosan (late Miocene / early Pliocene; following Reguero & Candela, 2011) Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Included species. Sparassocynus derivatus Reig & Simpson, 1972, Chapadmalalan (late early Pliocene) and Marplatan (late Pliocene), Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, and S. maimarai n. sp.	en	Abello, María Alejandra, Reyes, Martín De Los, Candela, Adriana Magdalena, Pujos, Francois, Voglino, Damián, Quispe, Bernardino Mamani (2015): Description of a new species of Sparassocynus (Marsupialia: Didelphoidea: Sparassocynidae) from the late Miocene of Jujuy (Argentina) and taxonomic review of Sparassocynus heterotopicus from the Pliocene of Bolivia. Zootaxa 3937 (1): 147-160, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3937.1.7
038987DA5360FFCEFF5AF951FA88F977.taxon	etymology	Etymology. “ maimarai ” in reference to the locality of Maimará where the new species was discovered. Holotype. JUY-P- 48, left mandibular fragment with a complete p 2 – m 4 series. Locality and Horizon. The type specimen was collected in the Maimará Formation (late Miocene-early Pliocene), near the Locality of Maimará, Jujuy Province, Argentina (Fig. 1 C).	en	Abello, María Alejandra, Reyes, Martín De Los, Candela, Adriana Magdalena, Pujos, Francois, Voglino, Damián, Quispe, Bernardino Mamani (2015): Description of a new species of Sparassocynus (Marsupialia: Didelphoidea: Sparassocynidae) from the late Miocene of Jujuy (Argentina) and taxonomic review of Sparassocynus heterotopicus from the Pliocene of Bolivia. Zootaxa 3937 (1): 147-160, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3937.1.7
038987DA5360FFCEFF5AF951FA88F977.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Sparassocynus maimarai differs from S. bahiai and S. derivatus by its smaller size, the relatively longer m 1 with respect to the m 4, its more robust and conical entoconids, and the presence of a lingual cingulum extended between para- and metaconid on the m 1 – 3. Comparative description. Considering the mean of m 1 – 3 length as a proxy of species size, S. maimarai is 9 % smaller than S. bahiai and S. derivatus (Tables 2 and 3). The horizontal ramus of the dentary is short and deep as in S. bahiai and S. derivatus, and about a 40 % deeper than Hesperocynus (Tables 2 and 3). The mandibular symphysis is long, ending posteriorly behind to the p 3 – m 1 boundary (Fig. 5 A – C). The ventral border of the horizontal ramus between p 2 and m 4 is not preserved (Fig. 5 A – B) and the possible presence of a well-developed notch mark for the geniohyoid muscle, a diagnostic character of sparassocynids (Goin, 1991), could not be evaluated. On the labial side of the dentary two mental foramina are present, one located below the p 2 and the other below the posterior root of m 1. The anterior end of the mandible is broken in front of the p 2 (Fig. 5 A – B). Behind the root of the canine is the posterior alveolus of p 1, which was oblique to the dentary row (Fig. 5 C). The p 2 is labiolingualy compressed, and has a small posterior cusp; the p 3 is narrow posteriorly with a small lingual talon (Fig. C, E). Premolars are slightly imbricated, without diastema between them such as some specimens of S. derivatus (e. g., MMP 1088). Molars increase in length, and have a proportionally longer and wider trigonids, from m 1 to m 4. First lower molar is relatively longer with respect to the m 4 than it is in S. bahiai and S. derivatus (Tables 2 and 3). Talonids of S. maimarai are shorter and narrower than the trigonids as occur in the remaining Sparassocynus species (Fig. 5 C; Tables 2 and 3). The talonid of m 4 is, in the contact with the trigonid, as wide as that of S. derivatus and S. bahiai (Figs. 5 C and 3 A – B), and wider than in H. dolgopolae (Fig 3 D; Tables 2 and 3). Similarly to the remaining Sparassocynidae, trigonids are higher than talonids (Reig & Simpson, 1972; Goin, 1991). The paraconid is lower than proto- and metaconid; metaconid is reduced compared to the protoconid and partially fused to this cusp (Fig. 5 D – E, G). The paraconid is slightly larger than that of S. bahiai and S. derivatus. Lingually, a basal cingulum is located between para- and metaconid (Fig. 5 D, F – G). Anterobasal cinguli are narrow and become anteriorly wider along the paraconid where they form deep hypoconulid notchs. The hypoconids are lingual to the protoconids and do not project labially (Fig. 5 C, F). The entoconids are robust and rounded in section (i. e., are not labiolingually compressed; Fig. 5 C, F) compared to that of other Sparassocynus species. The hypoconulids are well developed, especially on m 2 – 3, and locked in the deep hypoconulid notchs of the respective posterior molars. ‘ Sparassocynus ’ heterotopicus MNHN-BOL- 011896 0.9 continued. Taxon Lm 3 Wtrigm 3 Ltrigm 3 Wtalm 3 Ltalm 3 Lm 4 Sparassocynus maimarai 3.4 2.2 2.4 2 1 3.5 Sparassocynus derivatus 3.7 2.3 2.7 2.2 1 4.2 Sparassocynus derivatus 3.8 2.6 2.8 2.4 1 4.3 Sparassocynus derivatus 3.4 2.2 2.5 2.2 0.9 4 Sparassocynus derivatus 3.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.1 3.9 Sparassocynus derivatus 3.7 2.6 2.7 2.3 1 4.4 Hesperocynus dolgopolae 3.4 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.1 Hesperocynus dolgopolae 3.6 2.25 2.4 2 1.2 3.8 Sparassocynus bahiai 4 2.5 2.9 2.3 1.1 4.4 Sparassocynus bahiai 3.7 2.5 2.8 2.35 0.9 4.2 Sparassocynus bahiai 4 2.3 2.9 2.1 1.1 4.4 ‘ Sparassocynus ’ heterotopicus 3.6 2 2.5 17.5 1.1 3.6 LM 2 WM 2 LM 3 WM 3 LM 4 AM 4 ‘ Sparassocynus ’ heterotopicus 3.25 2.8 3.5 3.2 3.7 3.4 continued. Taxon Lm 1 / Ltal Lm 2 / Ltal Lm 3 / Ltal Wtrigm 4 / wtal The assignation of the specimen JUY-P- 48 to the Sparassocynidae is based on the presence of the following diagnostic characters of the family (according to Reig & Simpson, 1972; Goin, 1991): (1) high dentary, (2) long symphysis, (3) premolars without diastema, (4) lower molars with high trigonids and low talonids, (5) short and narrow talonids, and (6) metaconid small and partly fused with protoconid. In the context of the Sparassocynidae specimen JUY-P- 48 shared several characters with Sparassocynus species. Like them it has a deeper dentary, talonids of m 1 – 3 relatively shorter, and talonid of m 4 proportionally wider than that of Hesperocynus dolgopolae (Figs. 3 and 5 A; Tables 2 and 3). Forasiepi et al. (2009) have considered that two characters mentioned previously as diagnostic of the Sparassocynidae (Reig & Simpson, 1972; Goin, 1991) are actually diagnostic of Sparassocynus: an extremely reduced metaconid fused with the protoconid and slightly imbricate premolar tooth row. Unfortunately, the first of these traits could not be evaluated in the specimen JUY-P- 48. It is hard to establish if the size difference between metaconid and protoconid was similar to that in S. bahiai and S. derivatus because of worn degree of molars (Figs. 3 A – B and 5 A). In relation to the second character, we observed that the imbrication degree of the premolars shows intraspecific variability, at least in one species of this genus; therefore, we considered that this trait is not diagnostic of Sparassocynus. All studied specimens of S. bahiai have slightly imbricate premolars, but in S. derivatus specimens premolars could be not imbricated (e. g., MMP 1379) to slightly imbricated (e. g., MMP 412). Compared with S. derivatus and S. bahiai, specimen JUY-P- 48 is characterized by its smaller size, the m 1 relatively longer with respect to the m 4, the proportionally robust and conical entoconids, and the presence of a lingual cingulum extended between para- and metaconid on the m 1 – 3 (Tables 2 and 3). These characters indicate that the new specimen from Maimará locality represents a new species of Sparassocynus: S. maimarai sp. nov.	en	Abello, María Alejandra, Reyes, Martín De Los, Candela, Adriana Magdalena, Pujos, Francois, Voglino, Damián, Quispe, Bernardino Mamani (2015): Description of a new species of Sparassocynus (Marsupialia: Didelphoidea: Sparassocynidae) from the late Miocene of Jujuy (Argentina) and taxonomic review of Sparassocynus heterotopicus from the Pliocene of Bolivia. Zootaxa 3937 (1): 147-160, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3937.1.7
038987DA536DFFCCFF5AF89DFB7EFE6B.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. MNHN-BOL- 011896, fragment of a left maxilar with M 1 – 3 (Fig. 4 A), fragment of a left mandible with m 2 – 4 (Fig. 4 B – C), and an edentulous right mandible with roots of c – m 4. Locality and Horizon. Locality of Umala, Department of La Paz, Bolivia. Umala Formation (Montehermosan, early Pliocene sensu Marshall et al., 1979). Comparative description. The general morphology of the dentition of S. heterotopicus shows characters common to diverse carnivorous didelphoids (Goin & Pardiñas, 1996: 351; Forasiepi et al., 2009); among them are the upper molars with long metacristae and small protocones, and lower molars with small talonids and strong paracristids. Upper molars of MNHN-BOL- 011896 (Fig. 4 A) have a stylar shelf narrower than that of didelphids and as wide as in sparassocynids. The StA is absent on M 1 and M 3 and reduced on M 2. On M 1 the StB is the largest stylar cusp (in section it is half of the size of paracone), the StD is smaller than StB and subdivided into two cusps; finally StE is low and poorly developed. On M 2 the StB is proportionally larger than on M 1 and, as in the M 1, StB is larger than StD; this latest is not subdivided and StE is missing. A reduced StB is present on M 3. In contrast to the extant compared Didelphidae (Lutrolina, Didelphis, Monodelphis, Thylamys, and Caluromys) and the extinct didelphids Thylatheridium, Thylophorops, and Hyperdidelphys, stylar cusps B and D are proportionally smaller. Compared to the Sparassocynidae, particularly Sparassocynus, the StB and StD are similarly developed, but MNHN-BOL- 011896 differs by having a subdivided StD on M 1. Regarding relative sizes between StB and StD on M 1 – 2, MNHN-BOL- 011896 is similar to the extinct didelphid Hyperdidelphis and sparassocynids in wich StB is larger than StD and differs from the extant compared didelphids, the extinct didelphid Thylophorops and Thylatheridium, by having a StB smaller than the StD. On M 1 the preparacrista is short and points towards the parastylar corner whereas on M 3 ends labially at the anterior base of the StB; on M 2 the labial end of the preparacrista could not be evaluated because of wear. In the morphology of the preparacrista of M 1, MNHN-BOL- 0 11896 differs from all compared taxa in which this crest joins the StB, excepting Didelphis, in which the preparacrista contacts the StA. On the other hand, the arrangement of the distal end of the preparacrista in the M 3 of Umala specimen is similar to that of the M 3 of Thylophorops, Hyperdidelphis parvula (Goin & Pardiñas, 1996), and all compared extant didelphids (except Didelphis); it also differs from the M 3 of sparassocynids and Thylatheridium in which this crest joins the StB. The postmetacrista is long, sharp, and oblique as in carnivorous didelphids (e. g., Lutreolina), but is slightly shorter than in sparassocynids (a long metacrista is a diagnostic character of the sparassocynids, Reig & Simpson, 1972, Goin, 1991). The metacone is large and the paracone is reduced as in other carnivorous forms (Forasiepi et al., 2009); despite both cusps are closer to each other than in didelphids, they are not fused as in sparassocynids (Reig & Simpson, 1972; Goin, 1991). The paracone is less reduced than the metacone compared to sparassocynids and didelphids. There is no evidence of para- and metaconule on M 1 – 2, but on the M 3 a small paraconule is present at the base of the paracone and the end of the preprotocrista. The protocone on M 1 – 3 has a small occlusal surface in relation to the total molar occlusal surface; in this proportion, protocones are smaller than those of didelphids and larger than in sparassocynids. Furthermore protocones in S. heterotopicus are eccentric, similarly to those in sparassocynids and some didelphids (e. g., Thylophorops and Hyperdidelphys). The ectoflexus is poorly developed in the M 1 – 2 and strongest in the M 3, as occurs, for example, in the sparassocynids and most didelphids (Voss & Jansa, 2009). The mandible of MNHN-BOL- 011896 is broken in front of the m 2 and has lost most of the coronoid and angular processes, as well as a portion of the condylar process. The horizontal ramus is shallow (see Table 2) and bears a strong labial scar for the masseteric muscle on its posterolateral surface; the masseteric fossa appears to have been deep as in Lutreolina. The articular condyle is transversely elongated and the angular processes acute and strongly inflected as is common among didelphids (Voss & Jansa, 2009). Lower dentition of MNHN-BOL- 0 11896 is partially preserved (Fig. 4 B – C). The metaconid, part of the protoconid of m 2, and the metaconid of m 4 are lost, so the morphology of the trigonid cusps (high and relative size) can be better described from those whole cusps of m 3. Similarly to some didelphids (e. g., Thylatheridium), the trigonid of the m 3 is higher than the talonid, but not as tall as it is in sparassocynids. The paraconid is a robust cusp (as in m 2 and m 4), similar to the metaconid in height, but quite larger in section. The metaconid is a small cusp located close to the protoconid resembling sparassocynids and, in less extent, Lutreolina among didelphids. A strong paracristid is developed along the protoconid and paraconid cusps; it is not straight (e. g., Monodelphis, Thylamys, and Didelphis) but forms an obtuse angle between the proximal (premetacristid) and distal (postparacristid) portions as occurs, for example, in sparassocynids, Thylatheridium and Lutreolina. The anterobasal cingulum of m 2 – 4 is narrow and it extends posteriorly up to the anterior wall of the protoconid. The talonids of m 2 – 4 are very shallow and have a smaller occlusal surface than trigonids; on m 2 – 3 talonids are short and narrow like in the sparassocynids (Figs. 2, 4 B and 5 A; Table 2). In all molars the hypoconid projects slightly, not exceeding the labial wall of the protoconid. In the m 2 both cusps are equally projected but in the m 3 the hypoconid is placed more lingually than the protoconid, thus the talonid is narrower in the m 3 than in the m 2. In the m 4 the hypoconid is a small cusp positioned behind the posterior wall of the protoconid. The cristid obliqua is slightly oblique on m 2, and antero-posteriorly oriented on m 3 – 4. The entoconid is a poorly differentiated cusp on m 2 – 3 (better seen on m 2), and absent on m 4. The hypoconulid is smaller than the entoconid and positioned behind this cusp on m 2 – 3. The talonid of m 4 is relatively wider than in Sparassocynidae species and several didelphids such as Thylatheridium and Monodelphis. In contrast with these taxa, S. heterotopicus lacks a cingulum along the labial wall of the talonid bellow the hypoconid; in this regard, the talonid of m 4 of S. heterotopicus is similar to that in Lutreolina and Didelphis.	en	Abello, María Alejandra, Reyes, Martín De Los, Candela, Adriana Magdalena, Pujos, Francois, Voglino, Damián, Quispe, Bernardino Mamani (2015): Description of a new species of Sparassocynus (Marsupialia: Didelphoidea: Sparassocynidae) from the late Miocene of Jujuy (Argentina) and taxonomic review of Sparassocynus heterotopicus from the Pliocene of Bolivia. Zootaxa 3937 (1): 147-160, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3937.1.7
