identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
0382F6476F1DFF85FC4838049E01FC0F.text	0382F6476F1DFF85FC4838049E01FC0F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tamias Illiger 1811	<div><p>Genus TAMIAS Illiger, 1811</p> <p>Remarks. Tamias, Eutamias, and Neotamias are here considered subgenera of the genus Tamias (cf. Nowak, 1999; Wilson and Reeder, 2005).</p> <p>Type species. Tamias (Eutamias) urialis (Munthe, 1980)</p> <p>cf. Tamias urialis (Munthe, 1980)</p> <p>Figure 2</p> <p>Holotype. H-GSP 2013, left mandible fragment with m1-m2.</p> <p>Type locality. H-GSP locality 18, upper Chinji Formation, Miocene.</p> <p>Referred materials. WIMF /A 4743 right M1/2 (Figure 2A); WIMF /A 4749 left m1/2 (Figure 2B).</p> <p>Occurrence. Dunera locality, Punjab, India (study area); Middle Miocene of Dehari locality, Ramnagar, India; Middle Miocene to Late Miocene of Potwar Plateau, Pakistan; early Late Miocene Tapar locality, Kutch, India.</p> <p>Descriptions. WIMF /A 4743 (Figure 2A) is an upper M1 or M2 with a U-shaped occlusal outline, tapering slightly from the buccal to the lingual side of the tooth. It is buccolingually broad compared to mesiodistal length (Table 1). A paracone, metacone, and protocone are present, and these three cusps are similar in size and prominence. A hypocone appears to be absent, or otherwise indistinct in the distolingual portion of the tooth. A paraconule is absent, but a very small metaconule is present on the metaloph. The protoloph and metaloph are relatively well-defined, resulting in a prominent ‘V’-shape in the center of the occlusal surface. The protoloph is complete and relatively uniform in shape, while the metaloph becomes pinched as it approaches the protocone (i.e., between the metaconule and protocone). The anterior cingulum is well-developed, and a parastyle appears to be present in the mesiobuccal corner of the tooth. A small ridge or cuspule, perhaps interpretable as a small mesostyle, is present on the buccal margin of the tooth between the paracone and metacone.</p> <p>WIMF /A 4749 (Figure 2B), a left m1/2, is rounded on its distal end and slightly wider than long (Table 1). The three visible cusps, the protoconid, metaconid, and hypoconid are distinct, whereas the paraconid, entoconid, and hypoconu-</p> <p>PALAEO- ELECTRONICA.ORG lid are indistinct or absent. The protoconid is the tallest of the three cusps. The hypoconid is slightly shorter and connected to the protoconid by a mesiodistally oriented cristid obliqua (=ectolophid) running between the bases of these two cusps. A very short mesial or anterior cingulum is present in the mesiobuccal corner of the tooth, forming a small mesiobuccal fovea (i.e., the anterosinusid) between the protoconid and the paralophid. A short protolophid (= metalophid) is very low and incomplete, running from the base of the protoconid turning mesially towards the anterior border of the tooth near the midline. A mesoconid and mesostylid are absent. The lingual side of the tooth is bordered by a ridge that continues around the distal end to connect with the posterolophid, forming a broad and open talonid basin. The tooth has four roots.</p> <p>Comparison and Remarks. Munthe (1980) described the first fossil sciurid Eutamias urialis from the Middle Miocene Siwalik deposits of Daud Khel area of Pakistan. Wessels et al. (1982) collected additional fossil sciurid remains from the Chinji Formation (Middle Miocene) exposed in Banda Daud Shah and identified them as Tamias urialis (Munthe, 1980), Sciurinae gen. et sp. indet. and Marmotini gen. et sp. indet. Cheema et al. (1983) recovered sciurid remains cf. Eutamias urialis from Siwalik deposits near Jalalpur in Pakistan, and then Cheema et al. (2000) further classified them as Eutamias urialis (gracile specimens) and Sciurinae gen. et sp. indet. (robust specimens). Flynn (2003) recognized additional sciurids, Callosciurus sp. from the Middle Miocene (14 Ma), Ratufa sylva from the Late Miocene (10.5 Ma) and cf. Ratufa sp. from the Early Miocene (17 Ma), Potwar Plateau, Pakistan. Where overlapping dental positions exist, the cf. Ratufa sp. upper molars from the Early Miocene of Pakistan are easily distinguished from the present M1/2 by their extensive enamel crenulation, the presence of a paraconule, a large metaconule, and a distinct mesostyle. In the Indian Siwaliks, Parmar et al. (2018) and Bhandari et al. (2021) reported Tamias urialis from the Middle Miocene Chinji Formation of Ramnagar and the Late Miocene of Tapar locality in Kutch, respectively. Most recently, Patnaik et al. (2022) described a new species of sciurid, Tamias gilaharee, from Tapar. The M1/2 of Tamias gilaharee is distinguished from WIMF /A 4731 and T. urialis by the combination of larger upper molars, a metaloph with a very large metaconule, a thick protoloph with a distinct protoconule, a constricted lingual metaloph, and a more distinct hypocone. As per Munthe (1980) and Wessels et al. (1982), the upper molars of Tamias urialis are more typically characterized by having high, thin protolophs, metalophs, posterolophs, a low lying anteroloph, a</p> <p>Square Elements Mean length Mean width Mean root of Taxon Locality (n=sample (range) (range) width/ Age Reference width* size) in mm in mm length length</p> <p>Tamias cf. eviensis Yapıntı, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.73 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias cf. eviensis Yapıntı, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.72 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias Altıntas 1, M1/2 (n=34) 1.53 anatoliensis Turkey (1.41-1.68)</p> <p>Tamias Altıntas 2, M1/2 (n=16) 1.53 anatoliensis Turkey (1.45-1.62)</p> <p>Tamias atsali Maramena, M 1/2 (n=9) 1.56 Turkey (1.50-1.60)</p> <p>Tamias cf. eviensis Karaozu, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.46 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias cf. eviensis Karaozu, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.51 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias cf. eviensis Hayranlı 1, M1/2 (n=1) 1.56 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias cf. eviensis Hayranlı 1, M1/2 (n=1) 1.49 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias atsali Kangal 1, M1/2 (n=1) 1.59 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias atsali Kangal 1, M1/2 (n=1) 1.54 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias urialis Daud Khel, M 1/2 (n=13) 1.35 Pakistan (1.26- 1.44)</p> <p>Tamias aff. atsali Suleymanlı 2, M1/2 (n=1) 1.41 Turkey</p> <p>Tamias urialis Jalalpur, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.5 Pakistan</p> <p>Tamias urialis Dehari, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.3 Jammu</p> <p>(India)</p> <p>Sciurinae Jalalpur, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.75 gen. et sp. indet. Pakistan</p> <p>Tamias gilaharee Tappar, M 1/2 (n=1) 1.65 Kutch, India</p> <p>Tamias urialis Banda daud M1/2 (n=1) 1.55 Shah</p> <p>(H-GSP 107)</p> <p>Tamias urialis Banda daud M1/2 (n=1) 1.48 Shah</p> <p>(H-GSP 107)</p> <p>Tamias urialis Banda daud M1/2 (n=1) 1.57 Shah</p> <p>(H-GSP 107)</p> <p>Sciurinae Banda daud M1 (n=1) 1.81 gen. et sp. indet. Shah</p> <p>(H-GSP 107)</p> <p>cf. Tamias urialis Dunera, M 1/M2 (n=1) 1.54 (WIMF /A 4731) Punjab, India</p> <p>Tamias Altıntas 1, m1 (n=14) 1.54 anatoliensis Turkey (1.42-1.65)</p> <p>Tamias Altıntas 2, m1 (n=11) 1.63 anatoliensis Turkey (1.53-1.73)</p> <p>Tamias atsali Maramena, m 1 (n=7) 1.70 Turkey (1.58-1.87)</p> <p>Tamias atsali Kangal 1, m1 (n=1) 1.84 Turkey</p> <p>2.1 1.21 1.91 Early Bosma et al., 2018 Miocene</p> <p>2.05 1.19 1.88 Early Bosma et al., 2018 Miocene</p> <p>1.93 1.26 1.72 Late Bosma et al., 2013</p> <p>(1.75-2.06) Miocene</p> <p>1.92 1.25 1.71 Late Bosma et al., 2013</p> <p>(1.82-2.11) Miocene</p> <p>1.98 1.27 1.76 Late Bosma et al., 2013</p> <p>(1.92-2.07) Miocene</p> <p>1.81 1.24 1.63 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.87 1.24 1.68 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.82 1.17 1.68 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.8 1.21 1.64 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.82 1.14 1.70 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.94 1.26 1.73 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.71 1.27 1.52 Middle Munthe, 1980</p> <p>(1.48-1.80) Miocene</p> <p>1.84 1.30 1.61 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene</p> <p>1.8 1.20 1.64 Late Cheema et al., 2000 Miocene</p> <p>1.42 1.09 1.36 Middle Parmar et al., 2018 Miocene</p> <p>2.3 1.31 2.01 Late Cheema et al., 2000 Miocene</p> <p>2.1 1.27 1.86 Late Patnaik et al., 2022 Miocene</p> <p>1.88 1.21 1.71 Middle Wessels et al., 1982 Miocene</p> <p>1.92 1.30 1.69 Middle Wessels et al., 1982 Miocene</p> <p>1.76 1.12 1.66 Middle Wessels et al., 1982 Miocene</p> <p>2.5 1.38 2.13 Middle Wessels et al., 1982 Miocene</p> <p>1.87 1.21 1.70 Middle This study Miocene</p> <p>1.63 1.06 1.58 Late Bosma et al., 2013</p> <p>(1.47-1.75) Miocene</p> <p>1.64 1.01 1.63 Late Bosma et al., 2013</p> <p>(1.55-1.74) Miocene</p> <p>1.67 0.98 1.68 Late Bosma et al., 2013</p> <p>(1.54-1.82) Miocene</p> <p>1.83 0.99 1.83 Late Bosma et al., 2013 Miocene metaloph with a small metaconule, an indistinct hypocone, and a protoloph often lacking a protoconule.</p> <p>The m1/2 of Tamias urialis is mainly characterized by the presence of three prominent cusps (metaconid, protoconid, and hypoconid), the absence of a mesostylid, entoconid, and mesoconid, a nearly complete metalophid ridge between the metaconid and protoconid, and a sharp ridge connecting the protoconid and hypoconid (Munthe, 1980; Wessels et al., 1982). Overall, the present lower molar (WIMF /A 4749) is similar to the m1/2 of Tamias urialis except for its very short and incomplete metalophid. Tamias gilaharee m1/2 is characterized by the presence of four main cusps (protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, and entoconid), a distinct anteroconid, a prominent hypolophid, anterosinusid, mesoconid, and a discontinuous anterolophid. The absence of an entoconid, mesoconid, anteroconid, and mesostylid in WIMF /A 4749 distinguish it from the m1/2 of Tamias gilaharee.</p> <p>WIMF /A 4743 and WIMF /A 4749 are both within the size and shape range for upper and lower first and second molars of the sciurid Tamias urialis (see Figure 3 A-B). In addition, the observable positions and development of the cusps and crests in the Dunera specimens are also consistent with those previously described for T. urialis and distinct from other species of Tamias. Therefore, in light of the small sample size, these two specimens from Dunera are most similar to Tamias urialis, we tentatively classify them as cf. Tamias urialis.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F1DFF85FC4838049E01FC0F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
0382F6476F19FF85FCD63A9398B8FBA1.text	0382F6476F19FF85FCD63A9398B8FBA1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cricetidae Fischer von Waldheim 1817	<div><p>Family CRICETIDAE Fischer von Waldheim, 1817 Genus DEMOCRICETODON Fahlbusch, 1969</p> <p>Type species. Democricetodon crassus Fahlbusch, 1969.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F19FF85FCD63A9398B8FBA1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
0382F6476F19FF88FC033DF89E26F892.text	0382F6476F19FF88FC033DF89E26F892.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Democricetodon fejfari Lindsay 2017	<div><p>Democricetodon fejfari Lindsay, 2017</p> <p>Figure 4</p> <p>Holotype. YGSP 19321, left dentary with m1–3.</p> <p>Type locality. YGSP locality 388, Middle Miocene of Pakistan.</p> <p>Referred materials. WIMF /A 4734 right M3 (Figure 4A), WIMF /A 4735 left M3 (Figure 4B), WIMF /A 4729 right m1 (Figure 4C); WIMF /A 4740 left m2 (Figure 4D).</p> <p>Occurrence. Dunera locality, Punjab, India (study area); Middle Miocene Kulwanta (K2) locality, Ramnagar, India; early Late Miocene Tapar locality, Kutch, India; Middle to Late Miocene of Potwar Plateau, Pakistan.</p> <p>Descriptions. WIMF /A 4734 (Figure 4A) and WIMF /A 4735 (Figure 4B) are both M3s with the mesial cusps and mesial portion of both teeth being much wider than the distal cusps due to strong distal tapering, resulting in a subtriangular occlusal outline. WIMF /A 4734 and 4735 are both broader than long with relatively straight (transversely) mesial margins. The protocone is the largest cusp, followed by the paracone, and the distal cusps are much reduced comparatively. On WIMF / A 4734, a small hypocone is present, and an even smaller metacone can possibly be observed, as well as the mesoloph. On the more worn WIMF /A 4735, the hypocone and metacone are not easily differentiated and appear to have been worn flat. No mesoloph is observable on WIMF /A 4735. The anterior arm of the protocone runs anteriorly towards the midline, connecting with the mesial cingulum near the midline, slightly to the lingual side of the tooth. Similarly, the paracone has an anteriorly directed crest that runs towards the midline of the tooth, meeting the mesial cingulum together with the anterior arm of the protocone. The posterior arm of the protocone is shorter than the anterior arm and is again directed towards the midline of the tooth, connecting distally with the hypocone. In WIMF /A 4734, the hypocone has a posterior crest/arm that connects with the distal cingulum. In WIMF /A 4735, which is more worn, the hypocone and distal cingulum appear indistinct from each other. A mesostyle, ectoloph, and ectostyle are all absent. On the lingual side of the tooth, the anterior cingulum curves posterolingually to terminate near the base of the protocone. On the buccal side of the tooth, the anterior cingulum is relatively long and curves more sharply, posterobuccally, to terminate near the anterior base of the paracone.</p> <p>WIMF /A 4729 (Figure 4C) is a complete m1. The tooth is relatively long compared to its breadth and tapers mesially (or broadens posteriorly). The mesial border of the tooth is rounded in its outline. The specimen is worn and slightly damaged, making aspects if its morphology difficult to observe. The distal cusps (entoconid and hypoconid) appear larger than the anterior cusps (metaconid and protoconid). The lingual cusps are arranged slightly anterior to the labial cusps, resulting in a slightly offset appearance in occlusal view. The remnants of the anteroconid suggest that it was small and located near the midline on the anterior cingulum. Many of the occlusal crests and features are obscured by wear and/or damage. While the specimen appears most consistent in size and shape with D. fejfari, the occlusal details are not well-preserved.</p> <p>WIMF /A 4740 (Figure 4D) is a relatively complete left m2. In occlusal view the tooth is longer than broad, which leads to an overall rectangular shape. The four main cusps (protoconid, hypoconid, metaconid, and entoconid) appear subequal in size, with the lingual cusps mesially offset from the buccal cusps. In other words, the metaconid is slightly mesial compared to the protoconid, and the entoconid is positioned slightly mesial compared to the hypoconid. The anterior arm of the protoconid is short and merged with the metalophid and the anterolophid near the midline. The posterior arm of the protoconid is also short and directed toward the entoconid, joining the posterior spur of the protoconid and the anterior mure near the midline. The posterior spur of the protoconid is directed lingually and terminates freely. The hypoconid anterior and posterior arms are short, the anterior one merged with posterior mure and the posterior arm merged with posterior cingulum. A short hypolophid and medium-length ectolophid are present. Mesolophid, mesostylid, and ectostylid are absent. The entolophid is directed buccally from the entoconid to join the anterior arm of the hypoconid near the midline of the tooth. The anterobuccal cingulum is high and curves posteriorly to terminate near the base of the protoconid. The anterolingual cingulum is also high, but it is very short and terminates on the anterior side of the metaconid. The tooth’s lingual shelf is slightly deeper than its labial shelf. The posterior cingulum is long and high, curves anteriorly, and partially encloses a shallow posterolingual basin.</p> <p>Comparison and Remarks. The Siwalik Miocene Cricetidae are generally represented by two major taxonomic groups: Democricetodon and Megacricetodon (Fahlbusch, 1964; Lindsay, 2017). Democricetodon molars differ from Megacricetodon by sometimes possessing two lophs, i.e., thin crests that are directed buccally between the paracone and metacone in upper teeth, or two lophids, similar crests that are directed lingually between the metaconid and entoconid in lower teeth (Lindsay, 2017). All the cricetid specimens recovered from Dunera are here identified as Democricetodon by having two lophids between the metaconid and entoconid on m1 and m2, and a short mesoloph on M3.</p> <p>In the Siwalik deposits of the Indian subcontinent, five species of Democricetodon are recognized: D. kohatensis Wessels et al., 1982, D. fejfari Lindsay, 2017, and three smaller and unnamed species (Democricetodon sp. A; Democricetodon sp. B-C; and Democricetodon sp. D). Because they are found in older Siwalik deposits ~18 Ma, Lindsay (2017) suggested that the three smaller unnamed species might have evolved prior to their first recorded appearance, before the deposition of the Siwalik deposits in Pakistan. The last recorded species of Democricetodon is D. fejfari at ~8.7 Ma in the Siwalik deposits of Pakistan, and the first appearance of D. fejfari is ~13.8 Ma, which is also about the same time as the appearance of Antemus (Lindsay, 2017). The Early Miocene species D. khani was reported from the Murree Formation of Banda Daud Shah, Chitarwata Formation, and Vihowa Formation of Pakistan (de Bruijn et al., 1981).</p> <p>Compared to the known species of Democricetodon, the present m1 correlates well with the early Miocene species D. khani by having an extra transverse crest (protoconid posterior spur) between the metaconid and entoconid that is distinct from a true mesolophid, but differs from D. khani in its large size and sharp anterolophid. Among the Siwalik species of Democricetodon, the recovered m1 is very similar to D. fejfari. Recently, D. fejfari was also reported from the Middle Miocene K2 (Kulwanta) locality near Ramnagar, India (Parmar et al., 2022) and the Late Miocene of Gujarat, India (Bhandari et al., 2021; Patnaik et al., 2022). The m1 of D. fejfari is characterized by its relatively large size, small and single-cusped anteroconid, more offset lingual cusps that are mesially positioned compared to the labial cusps, lingually flexed posterior arm of the protoconid (resembling the mesolophid) directed toward the lingual margin of the tooth, and a short mesolophid (Lindsay, 2017). These features are present in the m1 described here and hence suggest assignment of WIMF /A 4729 to D. fejfari.</p> <p>The present m2 is also comparable to D. fejfari and D. khani by the presence of the protoconid posterior spur (loph near the protocone), but the ectolophid on this tooth differs from that in D. khani. The m2 WIMF /A 4740 (length=1.88 and width= 1.57 mm) is also much larger in size than the m2 of D. khani (length= 1.2 mm and width= 0.98 mm reported in Lindsay and Flynn, 2016), and generally falls towards the larger size range for D. fejfari, particularly in length (Lindsay, 2017).</p> <p>The Dunera M3 is similar to D. khani in possessing a subtriangular outline, a large protocone (larger than the other major cusps), and a prominent anterior cingulum (Lindsay and Flynn, 2016). However, the Dunera M3 displays an indistinct metacone, which is typically distinct in D. khani from the early Miocene. Another distinct feature found in D. khani is the presence of two lophs (mesoloph and protocone posterior spur) in M3, whereas the Dunera M3 displays only one loph. While the protocone posterior spur is difficult to distinguish from the mesoloph in many rodent teeth, Lindsay and Flynn (2016) clarified that a loph close to the paracone should be recognized as the protocone posterior spur, and the loph close to the metacone should be recognized as the mesoloph. Because the Dunera specimen exhibits one loph that is close to the paracone, this loph represents the protocone posterior spur. Thus, the Dunera M3 is clearly distinguished from D. kohatensis, which instead displays a well-developed mesoloph, long anteroloph, and small size (Wessels et al., 1982). The present M3 closely resembles the M3 of D. fejfari (Lindsay, 2017) in its triangular outline, larger protocone, prominent anterior cingulum, and the presence of the protocone posterior spur.</p> <p>When the size and shape of the Dunera specimens are compared to other described species of Democricetodon from the Siwaliks and Asia, more broadly (Cheema et al., 2000; Wessels and Reumer, 2009; Zhu-Ding, 2010; Lindsay and Flynn, 2016; Lindsay, 2017; Patnaik et al., 2022), the m1, m2, and M3 described here fall within the size range of D. fejfari but the shape of the Dunera m1 is slightly narrower than other D. feifari specimens (see Table 2). However, they are otherwise morphologically similar to D. fejfari, and we assign them to this species at this time.</p> <p>Elements Mean Square root Mean length Mean width Taxon Locality (n=sample width/ of width* Age Reference (range) in mm (range) in mm size) length length</p> <p>Democricetodon Tappar, m1 (n=2) 1.88 fejfari Kutch, India</p> <p>1.98 1.05 1.93 Late Miocene Patnaik et al., (11- 10 Ma) 2022</p> <p>Democricetodon China m1 (n=29) 1.43 1.05 suensis (1.25-1.60)</p> <p>(0.90- 0.73 1.23 Early Zhu-Ding, 2010</p> <p>1.15) Miocene Democricetodon sui China m1 (n=5) 1.26 (1.20-1.31)</p> <p>Democricetodon Pakistan m1 (n=18) 1.89 fejfari (1.03-2.13)</p> <p>Democricetodon Germany m1 (n=141) 1.30 gracilis (1.12-1.43)</p> <p>Democricetodon Germany m1 (n=182) 1.67 mutulus (1.48-1.86)</p> <p>Democricetodon Pakistan m1 (n=3) 1.50 kohatensis (1.40-1.60)</p> <p>0.84 0.67 1.03 Early Maridet et al.,</p> <p>(0.80-0.91) Miocene 2011</p> <p>1.32 0.70 1.58 Middle to Lindsay, 2017 (0.96-1.56) Late Miocene</p> <p>(13-8.7 Ma)</p> <p>0.91 0.70 1.09 Middle Wessels and (0.78-1) Miocene (16 Ma) Reumer, 2009</p> <p>1.11 0.66 1.36 Middle Wessels and (0.99-1.24) Miocene Reumer, 2009 (16 Ma)</p> <p>1.17 0.78 1.32 Late Cheema et al., (1.15-1.20) Miocene 2000</p> <p>(11-10 Ma)</p> <p>Democricetodon Pakistan m1 (n=1) 1.42 khani</p> <p>Democricetodon s p. Pakistan m1 (n=1) 2.05 B-C</p> <p>Democricetodon sp. Pakistan m1 (n=1) 1.95 G</p> <p>Democricetodon Dunera, m1 (n=1) 2.3 fejfari Punjab,</p> <p>India</p> <p>1</p> <p>1.3</p> <p>1.3</p> <p>1.37</p> <p>0.70 1.19 Early Lindsay and Miocene Flynn, 2016 (19 Ma)</p> <p>0.63 1.63 Late Cheema et al., Miocene 2000</p> <p>(11-10 Ma)</p> <p>0.67 1.59 Late Cheema et al., Miocene 2000</p> <p>(11- 10 Ma)</p> <p>0.60 1.78 Late This study Miocene</p> <p>(11-10 Ma) Democricetodon Tappar, m2 (n=7) 1.35 fejfari Kutch, India (1.25-1.45)</p> <p>Democricetodon China m2 (n=38) 1.36 suensis (1.20-1.50)</p> <p>Democricetodon Germany m2 (n=156) 1.18 gracilis (1.06-1.28)</p> <p>Democricetodon Pakistan m2 (n=33) 1.65 fejfari (1.14-1.88)</p> <p>Democricetodon Grmany m2 (n=217) 1.52 mutulus (1.37-1.68)</p> <p>Democricetodon Pakistan m2 (n=2) 1.42 kohatensis (1.40-1.45)</p> <p>1.06 0.79 1.20 Late Patnaik et al., (1.00-1.13) Miocene 2022</p> <p>(11-10 Ma)</p> <p>1.12 0.82 1.23 Early Zhu-Ding, 2010</p> <p>(1.00-1.20) Miocene</p> <p>0.98 0.83 1.08 Middle Wessels and (0.9-1.15) Miocene Reumer, 2009 (16 Ma)</p> <p>1.42 0.86 1.53 Middle to Lindsay, 2017 (0.98-1.72) Late Miocene</p> <p>(13-8.7 Ma)</p> <p>1.24 0.82 1.37 Middle Wessels and (1.10-1.39) Miocene Reumer, 2009 (16 Ma)</p> <p>1.17 0.82 1.29 Late Cheema et al., (1.15-1.20) Miocene 2000</p> <p>(11-10 Ma)</p> <p>Democricetodon Pakistan m2 (n=1) 1.21 khani</p> <p>Democricetodon sp. Pakistan m2 (n=1) 1.7 B-C</p> <p>Democricetodon sp. Pakistan m2 (n=1) 1.75 G</p> <p>Democricetodon Dunera m2 (n=1) 1.88 fejfari</p> <p>0.98</p> <p>1.6</p> <p>1.65</p> <p>1.57</p> <p>0.81 1.09 Early Lindsay and Miocene Flynn, 2016 (19 Ma)</p> <p>0.94 1.65 Late Cheema et al., Miocene 2000</p> <p>(11-10 Ma)</p> <p>0.94 1.70 Late Cheema et al., Miocene 2000</p> <p>(11- 10 Ma)</p> <p>0.84 1.72 Late This study Miocene</p> <p>(11-10 Ma) Democricetodon Germany M3 (n=80) 0.84 gracilis (0.70-0.94)</p> <p>0.89 1.06 0.86 Middle Wessels and</p> <p>(0.77-0.98) Miocene (16 Ma) Reumer, 2009</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F19FF88FC033DF89E26F892	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
0382F6476F15FF89FF663DEE9BAEFB24.text	0382F6476F15FF89FF663DEE9BAEFB24.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Progonomys Schaub 1938	<div><p>Genus PROGONOMYS Schaub, 1938</p> <p>Type species. Progonomys cathalai Schaub, 1938.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F15FF89FF663DEE9BAEFB24	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
0382F6476F15FF8DFF493C7B9A05FC30.text	0382F6476F15FF8DFF493C7B9A05FC30.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Progonomys hussaini Cheema 2000	<div><p>Progonomys cf. hussaini Cheema et al., 2000</p> <p>Figure 5 A-H</p> <p>Holotype. PMNH 5062, left M1.</p> <p>Type locality. JAL-101, upper portion of the Chinji Formation of the Jalalpur area, Chakwal District, Potwar Plateau, Pakistan.</p> <p>Referred materials. WIMF /A 4745 right M1 (Figure 5A), WIMF /A 4746 left M2 (Figure 5B), WIMF /A 4747 left M2 (Figure 5C), WIMF /A 4739 right m1 (Figure 5D), WIMF /A 4737 left m2 (Figure 5E), WIMF /A 4738 left m2 (Figure 5F), WIMF /A 4748 left m2 (Figure 5G), WIMF /A 4736 right m3 (Figure 5H).</p> <p>Occurrence. Dunera locality, Punjab, India (study area); early Late Miocene of Potwar Plateau, Pakistan.</p> <p>Description. WIMF/A 4745 (Figure 5A) is a right M1 with three roots that is slightly damaged on its buccal side. In occlusal view, the t1 (anterostyle) is placed posterolingually in relation to t2 (lingual anterocone) and t3 (labial anterocone), and weakly connected to the t2. The measured angle between the t1 and the longitudinal axis passing through the centre of the tooth (angle of anterostyle) is ~45°. The t2 and t3 are similar in size. The t4 (enterostyle) is also placed posteriorly compared to t5 (protocone), but is similar in mesiodistal position to t6 (paracone). The enterostyle is weakly connected to t5 (a characteristic that was determined after digitally removing matrix on the occlusal surface) and the measured angle of the enterostyle (angle formed by protocone and enterostyle) is ~72°. The larger t8 (hypocone) is attached to the smaller t9 (metacone). Overall, the cusps are inclined posteriorly and relatively weakly connected transversely. The precingulum is well developed at the mesial end of the tooth and bears a cuspule on its anterolabial margin. The small ridge-like posterior cingulum is connected to the t8, but also separated from it by a small sinus. The t1 and t4 are positioned posteriorly, and laterally compressed and elongated.</p> <p>The M2s, WIMF/A 4746 (Figure 5B) and 4747 (Figure 5C), are trapezoidal in occlusal outline. The enterostyle is posterolingual to the protocone and connected to the protocone by a small crest in WIMF/A 4747. In WIMF/A 4746, the potential connection between the enterostyle and protocone is weak. In both specimens, the enterostyle is similar or slightly smaller in size compared to the protocone. The protocone is larger than the paracone, and it is connected by a short crest. An anterostyle is present at the mesiolingual corner of each tooth, continuous with the anterior cingulum. The buccal anterostyle is located just mesial to the paracone and is a small button-shaped cusp in WIMF/A 4747 but more flattened in WIMF/A 4746. On the posterior chevron, a large hypocone is present, connected to the much smaller metacone by a mesiobuccally oriented crest. The hypocone is the largest cusp on both specimens, and the metacone is the smallest. The posterior cingulum is connected to the hypocone but isolated from the metacone by a shallow groove. All cusps are gently inclined posteriorly, and both teeth have three roots.</p> <p>WIMF/A 4739 (Figure 5D) is a right m1 and heavily worn, particularly on its lingual side. Its pre-lobe comprises a labial anteroconid and the remnants of a lingual anteroconid, with the larger labial anteroconid placed slightly distal compared to the lingual anteroconid. The pre-lobe (lingual and labial anteroconids) and the second lobe (protoconid and metaconid) form an “X” shape with a weak longitudinal connection placed towards the lingual side of the tooth, presumably an artifact of the lingual wear. The cuspids of the second lobe, the protoconid and the metaconid, are strongly connected with the protoconid larger and better preserved. The cuspids of the third lobe also have a strong transverse connection, with the buccal cusp (hypoconid) again better preserved compared to the lingual cusp (entoconid). Due in part to the wear on the lingual side, the buccal cusps appear larger and slightly distal relative to the lingual cusps. A buccal cingulum is present, along with prominent C1 and C3 cingular cusps. The posterior cingulum is short and placed towards the lingual side of the tooth; it does not connect to the buccal cingulum. The specimen has two roots.</p> <p>WIMF / A 4737 (Figure 5E), WIMF / A 4738 (Figure 5F) and WIMF / A 4748 (Figure 5G) are left m2s. The teeth are rectangular to trapezoidal in outline, tapering distally. The protoconid and metaconid are strongly connected to form the first chevron, whereas the hypoconid and entoconid are connected by a narrower crest and form the second chevron. All three specimens appear to display a labial anteroconid in the mesiobuccal corner of the tooth, particularly visible in the less worn WIMF / A 4737 and WIMF / A 4748 specimens. WIMF / A 4738 is heavily worn compared to the other two teeth, and thus the chevrons appear relatively larger in this specimen. In all three m2s, the first and second chevrons form a distally curving gentle arc, with the second chevron being more transverse (i.e., straight) compared to the first chevron. In both chevrons, the buccal cusps (protoconid and hypoconid) are slightly distal compared to the lingual cusps. In the two relatively unworn/lightly worn specimens (WIMF / A 4737 and 4748), a buccal cingulum is present with an accessory cuspid (C1) connected to the protoconid. In WIMF / A 4738, the C1 does not appear to be present (Figure 5F). A posterior cingulum is present between the hypoconid and entoconid at the distal end of all three molars. The m2s have two roots.</p> <p>WIMF/A 4736 (Figure 5H) is a left m3 with a relatively triangular-shaped outline owing to its strong distal tapering. The anterior portion is slightly eroded, but the remnants of a labial anteroconid is present on the remaining anterior cingulum. The protoconid and the metaconid are strongly connected. The protoconid is distally positioned compared to the metaconid. The hypoconid is connected to the entoconid to form the distal cusp row, and like the anterior chevron, the buccal cusp (hypconid) is slightly distal to the lingual cusp (entoconid). There is no buccal or posterior cingulum. There are no accessory cusps on the tooth and it has two roots.</p> <p>Comparison and Remarks. The Dunera murine M1 and m1 differ from those of Antemus in the presence of a connection between the t4/enterostyle with the protocone on M1 and an asymmetrical ‘X’ shaped longitudinal connection between the first and second chevrons on m1. The Dunera m2 differs from those of Antemus in having a strong connection between the cusps, and the molars generally display gently, posteriorly inclined cusps, another more advanced feature compared to Antemus. The presence of a large anteroposteriorly compressed and elongated anterostyle (t1) on the Dunera M1 (visible on the CT scan with the matrix removed), and the small size of the Dunera specimens in general, also differs from that of typical Karnimata.</p> <p>These new Dunera specimens share most features with Progonomys, including an M1 with an enterostyle connected to the protocone, posteriorly inclined cusps, a posteriorly shifted t1/anterostyle, and a well-defined posterior cingulum; an m1 with twinned anteroconids, an asymmetrical ‘X’ shaped longitudinal connection, a relatively well-developed (but worn) buccal cingulum, and accessory cusps C1 and C3 on the buccal cingulum. By looking at the angle of enterostyle and the angle of anterostyle among murines, the enterostyle angle on the present M1 is within the range of numerous murine species including pre- Progonomys and P. hussaini, but outside the range of Progonomys species that are known from ~9.2 Ma and younger horizons. The measured angle of anterostyle in the Dunera M1 is greater than Antemus chinjiensis, Progonomys debruijni, and pre- Progonomys, but is within the range of P. hussaini (see the angle measurements in Kimura et al., 2013, 2021). However, the enterostyle/t4 on M1 and M2 is weakly connected to the protocone unlike the strong connection in many species of Progonomys. If all of the described specimens belong to a single species, they are most similar to those described as Progonomys hussaini (Cheema at al., 2000) or “pre- Progonomys ” (Flynn et al., 2020). However, the m3 (WIMF/A 4736) is notable for its apparently large size, larger than all other measured Antemus, Progonomys, and Karnimata specimens in our sample (Figure 6; Appendix). Therefore, it is quite possible that more than one species is represented among the murine sample from Dunera.</p> <p>The Dunera specimens differ from Progonomys morganae (Kimura et al., 2017) and Progonomys debruijni (Jacobs, 1978) in having a strong precingulum on M1 and strongly appressed anteroconids forming one lobe connected weakly to the second lobe lingually on m1. The present specimens also differ from Progonomys prasadi, a new species described by Patnaik et al. (2022) from the Late Miocene of Kutch, in its smaller size (for all teeth other than m3), having M1 with cusps weakly connected transversely, an m1 with a short posterior cingulum, and an m3 with the lack of C1. In overall size and shape, the specimens overlap with specimens assigned to species of Antemus and Progonomys, falling closest to the mean of P. hussaini or “pre- Progonomys ” in most comparisons (Figure 6; Appendix).</p> <p>The known time-range of P. hussaini and “pre- Progonomys ” across sites in Pakistan spans a time period of ~11.6-10 Ma (Cheema et al., 2000; Flynn et al., 2020; Kimura et al., 2021). This time range accords well with previous paleomagnetic data from Dunera, which records normal polarity and has been correlated to the long C5n chron, ~11.06- 9.8 Ma (Cande and Kent, 1995; Sinha et al., 2005; Ogg, 2020). Currently, we assign these specimens to Progonomys cf. hussaini, given that they seem most similar to P. hussaini and yet are placed near the bottom of the C5n chron, close to ~11 Ma and ~500 thousand years earlier than the FAD for P. hussaini in Pakistan (Kimura et al., 2021). Because there is a time gap in major micromammal sites on the Potwar Plateau between ~11.1 Ma and 10.5 Ma (Kimura et al., 2021), it is quite possible that Dunera helps to fill in this gap and samples an earlier population of P. hussaini or a transitional stage between pre- Progonomys and P. hussaini. A biochronological estimate up to ~11 Ma (between ~11- 10 Ma) was previously suggested for the type series of P. hussaini from locality JAL- 101 in the Chinji Formation (Cheema et al., 2000). If the older age estimate for JAL-101 is correct, it may be coeval with Dunera and also sample the same time gap. Additional M 1 specimens could help confirm this assignment, but if confirmed, the Dunera specimens perhaps represent a new FAD for the P. hussaini lineage.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F15FF8DFF493C7B9A05FC30	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
0382F6476F11FF8DFEA13D6F99B3FB85.text	0382F6476F11FF8DFEA13D6F99B3FB85.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sayimys Wood 1937	<div><p>Genus SAYIMYS Wood, 1937</p> <p>Type species. Sayimys perplexus Wood, 1937</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F11FF8DFEA13D6F99B3FB85	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
0382F6476F11FF92FEBE3D149F76FB0D.text	0382F6476F11FF92FEBE3D149F76FB0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sayimys sivalensis (Hinton 1933)	<div><p>Sayimys sivalensis (Hinton, 1933)</p> <p>Figure 7</p> <p>Holotype. GSI D284, left partial dentary with m2– m3.</p> <p>Type locality. Chinji village, Middle Miocene of Pakistan.</p> <p>Referred materials. WIMF /A 4733 left M2 (Figure 7A), WIMF /A 4750 right M2 (Figure 7B), WIMF /A 4731 left M2 or M3 (Figure 7C); WIMF /A 4732 left m1 or m2 (Figure 7D).</p> <p>Occurrence. Dunera locality, Punjab, India (study area), early Late Miocene Tapar locality, Kutch, India; Middle Miocene Dehari locality, Ramnagar, India; Late Miocene Haritalyangar locality, India; Middle Miocene, Sind, Pakistan; Middle to Late Miocene of Potwar Plateau, Pakistan.</p> <p>Description. WIMF/A 4733 (Figure 7A) is identified as a likely M2 based in part on its size, which is larger than any M1 described for S. sivalensis by Munthe (1980). In occlusal view, the tooth narrows distally, and the outline of the mesial occlusal surface is rounded while the distal end is squared off. The lingual cusps (protocone and hypocone) are larger than the buccal cusps (paracone and metacone). The protocone is somewhat larger and extends more lingually than the hypocone. The paraflexus is indistinct, if present, with a slight indentation just anterior to the paracone. The mesoflexus is wider and greater in depth than hypoflexus, and these features are oriented slightly oblique to each other, separated by a small, narrow crest running mesiodistally on the lingual side of the tooth, connecting the anteroloph to the metaloph/posteroloph. A short metaflexus is present just distal to the metacone, and the posteroloph is shorter than the metaloph.</p> <p>WIMF/A 4750 (Figure 7B) is also identified as a likely M2, again based in part on its size, which is larger than M1s described by Munthe (1980) as well as slightly larger than WIMF/A 4733. In overall shape, WIMF/A 4750 is similar to WIMF/A 4733 with the distal portion of the tooth narrower than the mesial portion in occlusal view. WIMF/A 4750 is more worn than WIMF/A 4733, perhaps accounting for some of the minor differences between the teeth. The lingual cusps are again larger than the buccal cusps, with the protocone larger than the hypocone. Both lingual cusps extend to the lingual border of the tootha and neither cusp appears to extend more lingually than the other. The paraflexus is indistinct, with the slightest hint of an indentation or facet present just anterior to the paracone, although some of this appearance could be due to slight damage and wear. The mesoflexus is wider and greater in depth than hypoflexus, with the mesoflexus oriented lingually and the hypoflexus narrower and oriented mesiobuccally. The mesoflexus and hypoflexus are separated by a tiny, narrow crest running mesiodistally and slightly distolingually on the lingual side of the tooth, connecting the anteroloph to the metaloph/posteroloph. A short metaflexus is present just distal to the metacone, and a very short posteroloph is present (shorter than the metaloph) and oriented distobuccally, but more distally oriented compared to the posteroloph in WIMF/A 4733.</p> <p>WIMF/A 4731 (Figure 7C) is a left M2 or M3, most likely an M3. Though slightly larger, it is morphologically similar to the above described M2s. The paraflexus appears absent, with only the slightest indentation anterior to the paracone. The protocone is slightly larger than the hypocone, and the tooth narrows distally, to a greater degree than seen in the M2s. The mesoflexus and hypoflexus are more equal in size depth compared to the M2s, although the mesoflexus is still larger. They both terminate opposite each other near the midline, separated by a narrow mesiodistally oriented crest connecting the anteroloph to the metaloph/posteroloph. An extremely short metaflexus is present, represented by a shallow indentation distal to the metacone.</p> <p>WIMF/A 4732 (Figure 7D) is most probably a left m2 based on its relatively large size but given that m1 and m2 are difficult to separate morphologically, we describe it as an m1 or an m2. The occlusal outline of the tooth is sub-rectangular, slightly narrower posteriorly, with a transversely straight anterior margin that slightly narrows posteriorly. The protoconid is ‘v’ shaped and its anterior arm connects to the metalophid terminating at the metaconid. The protoconid extends more buccally compared to the hypoconid. The mesoflexid is slightly shorter and deeper than the metaflexid. The hypolophid runs at a slightly oblique angle postero-lingually, terminating at entoconid. The hypoconid is also ‘v’ shaped and its posterior arm merges with the obliquely oriented posterolophid that runs almost parallel to the hypolophid. The connection of the anterior arm of the hypoconid with the hypolophid is narrow, meeting near the midline of the tooth. The hypoflexid is much larger and deeper compared to the mesoflexid and metaflexid.</p> <p>Comparison and Remarks. Five ctenodactylid species belonging to two genera, Prosayimys and Sayimys, are currently recognized from the Neogene of the Indian subcontinent (López-Antoñanzas and Sen, 2003; López-Antoñanzas and Knoll, 2011). Prosayimys flynni is found in the Early Miocene Chitarwata Formation of Zinda Pir Dome, Pakistan, and at least four species of Sayimys are recognized at many Neogene sites across India and Pakistan (López-Antoñanzas and Sen, 2003; López-Antoñanzas and Knoll, 2011). The present specimens are very similar to those of the long ranging (Middle Miocene-Late Miocene) form S. sivalensis in having derived characters such as: semi-hypsodont teeth, a mesoflexid almost equal to the metaflexid in length on m1-m2, and a short or absent paraflexus and metaflexus on M1/M2 and M3. The present described specimens are larger in size compared to many species of Sayimys from the Siwaliks but fall within the range of Sayimys sivalensis (sensu López-Antoñanzas and Sen, 2003, including S. perplexus and S. chinjiensis), further supporting their assignment to S. sivalensis (see Table 3).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382F6476F11FF92FEBE3D149F76FB0D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar;Singh, Abhishek Pratap;Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit;Gilbert, Christopher C.;Patel, Biren A.;Patnaik, Rajeev	Sehgal, Ramesh Kumar, Singh, Abhishek Pratap, Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit, Gilbert, Christopher C., Patel, Biren A., Patnaik, Rajeev (2023): First report of rodents from the Miocene Siwalik locality of Dunera, Pathankot District, Punjab, India. Palaeontologia Electronica (a 49) 26 (3): 1-27, DOI: 10.26879/1308, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/1308
