identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
0385BC16FFFDFFD6FF6EF869FA6C4A01.text	0385BC16FFFDFFD6FF6EF869FA6C4A01.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphicyonidae TROUESSART 1885	<div><p>Family Amphicyonidae TROUESSART, 1885</p> <p>Subfamily Amphicyoninae TROUESSART, 1885</p> <p>E m e n d e d d i a g n o s i s. Amphicyonidae with robust carnassials (m1/P4), P4 tends to have a reduced protocone and crushing molars (m2, M1 and M2) with a highly developed occlusal surface.</p> <p>I n c l u d e d t r i b e s. Amphicyonini, Pseudarctini n. tribe, Magericyonini n. tribe.</p> <p>R e m a r k s. The taxonomy and systematics of the Miocene Amphicyonidae is highly complex (e.g., Kuss 1965, Viranta 1996, Hunt 1998, Ginsburg 1999, Peigné et al. 2008, Morales et al. 2016), and the reasons for this are well known: 1) proliferation of taxa, often with descriptions and definitions based on scarce and sometimes uncharacteristic fossils; 2) a dental morphology displaying very limited variability, associated with a wide size range and the presence of different species in the same locality.</p> <p>According to Ginsburg (1999), the subfamily Amphicyoninae is represented by 6 genera in Europe: Amphicyon LARTET, 1836, Cynelos JOURDAN, 1862, Pseudocyon LARTET, 1851, Ysengrinia GINSBURG, 1966, Pseudarctos SCHLOSSER, 1899 and Ictiocyon CRUSAFONT, VILLALTA et TRUYOLS, 1955. Moreover, he recognized three additional subgenera for Amphicyon: Megamphicyon KUSS, 1965, Euroamphicyon VIRANTA, 1996 and Heizmannocyon GINSBURG, 1999. These subgenera are considered to have been included in a generic rank in the present research. With the exception of Ysengrinia, which has been transferred to the Thaumastocyoninae (Heizmann and Kordikova 2000, Morales et al. 2019), the remaining genera of the subfamily, with the addition of the two new genera defined herein, can be classified into three groups, for which we propose the taxonomic rank of a tribe.</p> <p>Amphicyonini TROUESSART, 1885, comprising Amphicyon, Cynelos, Paludocyon n. gen., Heizmannocyon, Megamphicyon and Euroamphicyon. This group included the most typical Amphicyoninae; its molar dentition tends to present an increased surface area, the carnassials are robust and the premolar dentition progressively decreases in size and complexity.</p> <p>Pseudarctini tribe nov. comprising the genera Pseudarctos and Ictiocyon. As in the previous group, the molars tend to present a larger crushing surface, albeit displaying a different pattern with a greater mesiodistal length in the upper molars and buccolingual length in the lower molars. This is associated with a significant reduction of the carnassial teeth, and loss of the p4 distal accessory cuspid. Dehmicyon n. gen. is provisionally included as a basal form of this tribe.</p> <p>Magericyonini tribe nov. comprising genus Magericyon and with some doubt also Pseudcyon. Magericyonini represents a new attempt to develop an advanced hypercarnivore adaptation in the Amphicyonidae, while remaining closely related to the amphicyonines, but differing from the Thaumastocyoninae in the slightly reduced crushing dentition and in the morphology of the upper and lower carnassials, which retain an Amphicyonini pattern.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFFDFFD6FF6EF869FA6C4A01	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFFDFFD6FEBFF889FD4C4A91.text	0385BC16FFFDFFD6FEBFF889FD4C4A91.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carnivora BOWDICH 1821	<div><p>Order Carnivora BOWDICH, 1821</p> <p>Suborder Caniformia KRETZOI, 1943</p> <p>Infraorder Arctoidea FLOWER, 1869</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFFDFFD6FEBFF889FD4C4A91	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFFDFFD5FC0AF898FEA14DC4.text	0385BC16FFFDFFD5FC0AF898FEA14DC4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphicyonini TROUESSART 1885	<div><p>Tribe Amphicyonini TROUESSART, 1885</p> <p>T y p e g e n u s. Amphicyon LARTET, 1836.</p> <p>E m e n d e d d i a g n o s i s. Amphicyoninae with molar dentition tending to increase the molar surface area, the carnassial teeth are robust and the premolar dentition progressively decreases in size and complexity.</p> <p>E u r o p e a n g e n e r a i n c l u d e d. Amphicyon, Megamphicyon, Euroamphicyon, Cynelos, Heizmannocyon and Paludocyon n. gen.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFFDFFD5FC0AF898FEA14DC4	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFFEFFD5FEA0FEDCFBEF4C05.text	0385BC16FFFEFFD5FEA0FEDCFBEF4C05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paludocyon Morales & Fejfar & Heizmann & Wagner & Valenciano & Abella 2021	<div><p>Genus Paludocyon n. gen.</p> <p>T y p e a n d o n l y s p e c i e s. Pseudocyon bohemicus</p> <p>SCHLOSSER, 1899.</p> <p>E t y m o l o g y. From the Latin paludes, which means swampy areas, in relation to the marshy/ lacustrine sediments from the locality of Tuchořice.</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. Medium sized Amphicyonini, lower premolar row without diastemas, p4 small, with wide talonid. The m1 is robust, trigonid with low paraconid and large metaconid. The talonid is wider than the trigonid; it comprises a strong, high hypoconid, the lingual base is thickened apically, and has a subdivided entoconid. The m2 is short in comparison with the m1, and presents a reduced entoconid. P4 slender, with mesially elongated paracone and weak parastyle; the protocone is relatively strong and mesially located. The M1 shows two morphotypes, one subtriangular due to the narrowed lingual area, and the second with a subquadrangular lingual area. The paracone is high compared to the metacone. The metaconule is broad and clearly differentiated from the protocone. The M2 has a quadrangular occlusal shape, with a short buccal wall and a wide transversal diameter; metacone reduced. M3 and m3 reduced, with simple morphology.</p> <p>D i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s. Paludocyon n. gen. differs from Pseudocyon sansaniensis LARTET, 1851 (type species of Pseudocyon) in the greater robustness of its m1 and m2; the greater width of the m1 talonid and in its strong hypoconid which occupies almost the entire area of the talonid; additionally, the p4 and m2 exhibit a smaller reduction compared to the m1. It differs from Cynelos in the limited development of the distal molars (M2/M3 and m2/m3) compared with the first molars; it also differs in the significant reduction of the lower premolars, including p4; the greater width of the m1 talonid in relation to the trigonid and the greater height and size of its hypoconid, together with the reduction of the entoconid. The P4 of Paludocyon n. gen. has an elongated paracone mesial crista, whereas in Cynelos it is short and more vertical. The metacone of the M2 is smaller than the paracone, while in Cynelos lemanensis both are similar in size. Differences when compared to Amphicyon major BLAINVILLE, 1841 are also evident. Apart from the larger size, its dentition is characterized by the great width of the crushing dentition. Additionally, the A. major m1 trigonid is better developed than that in the Paludocyon species. Paludocyon also differs from Amphicyon in the reduced development of the distal molars relative to the first molars. This relatively small size of the distal molars in Paludocyon also enables it to be differentiated from Megamphicyon, which has large distal molars. Paludocyon differs from Heizmannocyon as the latter shows more specialized characters, such as: 1) the presence of more developed diastemas between the lower premolars; 2) the strong reduction of the lower premolars, including p4; 3) a higher m1 with a stronger hypoconid, placed in a central position; 4) a short robust P4, with the protocone distally displaced and reduced; 5) M1 showing a trapezoidal occlusal shape, enlarged trigone and reduced lingual area; 6) M2 with a longer buccal wall and a shortened buccolingual diameter.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFFEFFD5FEA0FEDCFBEF4C05	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFFEFFDEFC34FE9DFB154C05.text	0385BC16FFFEFFDEFC34FE9DFB154C05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paludocyon Morales & Fejfar & Heizmann & Wagner & Valenciano & Abella 2021	<div><p>Paludocyon bohemicus (SCHLOSSER, 1899)</p> <p>Text-figs 1–4, Tabs 1a, 2a</p> <p>1861 Amphicyon intermedius Mey.; Suess, p. 224, pl. II.</p> <p>1868 Amphicyon intermedius H. v. Meyer; Peters, p. 190.</p> <p>1899 Pseudocyon bohemicus n. sp.; Schlosser, p. 124, pl. XIV, figs 3, 4, 9.</p> <p>1901 Amphicyon bohemicus Schlosser; Schlosser, p. 62, pl. I, figs 18, 23–26, 29, 30.</p> <p>1929 Amphicyon bohemicus Schloss.; Viret, p. 113.</p> <p>1965 Amphicyon steinheimensis bohemicus (Schlosser) 1899; Kuss, pp. 40–46, figs 16–23.</p> <p>1973 Amphicyon bohemicus; Heizmann, pp. 17–20.</p> <p>1977 “ Amphicyon ” bohemicus; Ginsburg, pp. 94–95.</p> <p>1999 Cynelos (Heizmannocyon) bohemicus (SCHLOSSER, 1899); Ginsburg, p. 116.</p> <p>2000a Cynelos (Heizmannocyon) bohemicus (Schlosser) 1899; Ginsburg, p. 11.</p> <p>2003 Amphicyon bohemicus; Hunt, p. 105.</p> <p>2008 C [ynelos] bohemicus; Peigné et al., p. 954.</p> <p>2015 Cynelos bohemicus; Hunt and Stepleton, p. 2.</p> <p>2016 Amphicyon bohemicus (Schlosser 1899); Fejfar and Heizmann, p. 320, figs 9, 10, 11.1–5+11–17.</p> <p>2020 Cynelos cf. bohemicus (Schlosser 1899); Jiangzuo et al., p. 23, fig. 4.4–6.</p> <p>L e c t o t y p e. NM-Pv 11677, left m1, figured by Schlosser (1899: pl. 14, fig. 4; Text-fig. 4a herein). Lectotype designated by Kuss (1965: 41; he listed it under the old number 4330).</p> <p>P a r a l e c t o t y p e s. NM-Pv 11678 (old no. 4329), left P4, figured by Schlosser (1899: pl. 14, fig. 3); NM-Pv 11679 right incomplete M2, and NM-Pv 11731 right complete M3 (both old no. 205/1), figured by Schlosser (1899: pl. 14, fig. 3); and NM-Pv 11680 (old no. 4310) left m3, figured by Schlosser (1899: pl. 14, figs 4 and 9).</p> <p>T y p e l o c a l i t y. Tuchořice, the Czech Republic.</p> <p>A g e. Early Miocene, MN 3.</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. Same as genus.</p> <p>Additional material from type locality. NM-Pv 11681 (TU 7391149), left P4; NM-Pv 11682 (TU 7391150), left P4; NM-Pv 11683 (TU 739113), right P4; NM-Pv 11684 (TU 739155), left P4; NM-Pv 11685 (TU 739176), right M1; NM-Pv 11686 (TU 7391150), left M1; NM-Pv 11687 (TU 739185), M2 right; NM-Pv 11688 (TU 739149), left M2; NM-Pv 11689 (TU 739122), right M2; NM-Pv 11690 (TU 7391150), left M2; NM-Pv 11691 (TU 739165), right M3; NM-Pv 11692 (TU 739185), left M3; NM-Pv 11695 (TU-739157), right mandible with p2–m2; NM-Pv 11697 (TU 739135), right mandible with p3–m3; NM-Pv 11698 (TU 739142), association of right p4, m1 and m2; NM-Pv 11699 (TU 739141), left mandible with p3–m3; NM-Pv 11700 (TU 739177), left mandible with canine, p1–p2 alveolus and p3–m2; MN-Pv 11722, association of left p4–m3.</p> <p>D e s c r i p t i o n. NM-Pv 11678, left P4 (paralectotype, Text-fig. 3a). Well-developed basal cingulum, especially in the lingual wall. The protocone is located in a mesial position; it is wide but not very prominent or clearly differentiated from the cingulum. The union with the base of the paracone is not rectilinear, marking a clearly pronounced inflection. There is no isolated parastyle, although the mesial crista of the paracone bifurcates before reaching the base of the tooth. One of the branches is directed towards the protocone and the other mesiobuccally. The paracone is tall and pyramidal and the metastyle is relatively long. Both paracone and metastyle display vertical wear facets on the lingual side.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11681, left P4 (Text-fig. 3b). Differs from the former P 4 in which the paracone mesial crista is more pronounced before reaching the basal cingulum. The protocone is somewhat smaller and the mesial inflection between the base of the protocone and the paracone is less marked. NM-Pv 11682, right P4, is similar in morphology to the previous specimen, with a more reduced protocone and without the inflexion at the junction between the bases of the paracone and the protocone. NM-Pv 11683, right P4, has the same morphology to that of the paralectotype (NMPv 11678). NM-Pv 11684, left P4 (Text-fig. 3c), is somewhat larger than the other P4s and possesses a particularly wide protocone.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11685, right M1 (Text-fig. 3d). Molar with subtriangular occlusal shape; it is relatively short, with a distally projected narrowed lingual area, moderately developed and with a mesiolingually strong basal cingulum. The paracone is high compared to the metacone. Small parastyle and metastyle. Paraconule and metaconule differentiated from the protocone cristae, almost symmetrical in comparison to the transversal axis of the molar; metaconule larger than paraconule. Very large but low dune-form protocone. Trigone valley sub-rounded.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11686, left M1 (Text-fig. 3e). Differing from the previous M 1 in the greater development of the lingual cingulum, which completely surrounds the protocone, from the base of the paraconule to the base of the metaconule, and also a wider lingual area.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11687, M2 right (Text-fig. 3f). Sub-quadrangular in shape, with a short buccal wall and a wide transverse diameter in comparison with the M1. Moderately high buccal cusp s. Strong buccal cingulum, especially at the base of the paracone. Low protocone forming a single semicircular crista which reaches the base of both the paracone and the metacone. Very strong lingual cingulum, which is semicircular and completely surrounds the protocone. Other M2s such as Pv 11688 (Text-fig. 3g), NM-Pv 11689 (Text-fig. 3h) and NM-Pv 11690 (Text-fig. 3i) are similar in morphology to the previously described M2.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11691, right M3 (Text-fig. 3j), small molar with reduced metacone. Central protocone opposite to the paracone, both are joined by a circular serrated crista. Strong buccal and lingual cingula. The left M3 NM-Pv 11692 (Text-fig. 3k) is somewhat smaller than the previous specimen, differing in the complete loss of the metacone.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11677, left m1 (lectotype, Text-fig. 4a). Very robust molar, with a short paraconid presenting a vertical mesial cristid. High and very bulky protoconid. Metaconid quite strong, slightly displaced distally and with the lingual wall somewhat rounded. Short talonid, almost completely occupied by the hypoconid, the buccal wall of which is almost vertical. Low and crestiform entoconid. Small hypoconulid. Lingually weak basal cingulum, much stronger buccally, particularly at the base of the hypoconid, which is thickened apically.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11700, left mandible with canine, p1–2 alveolus and complete p3–m2 (Text-fig. 4b). It corresponds to a small specimen, but the dentition is morphologically similar to that of other specimens. The p1 and p2 alveoli are uniradiculated and reduced, a large diastema is developed between canine–p1 and p1–p2.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11695, right mandible with p2–m2 (Text-fig. 4c), mesial premolars practically unicuspidated; the p3 is unicuspid; the p4 is quite well developed, as is the main cuspid, which is higher than the m1 paraconid; a clearly separated and relatively acute distal cuspid is present. The m1 is very robust, with a short paraconid, mesial cristid somewhat inclined distally, and very pronounced. High and very bulky protoconid, with sharp mesial and distal cuspids. Quite strong metaconid, slightly displaced distally and with the lingual wall somewhat swollen. Short talonid, almost completely occupied by the hypoconid, the buccal wall of which is vertical. Low crestiform subdivided entoconid. Very weak basal cingulids. As in the m1 NM-Pv 11677, the buccal base of the hypoconid is thickened apically. The m2 has a moderately high trigonid, with the protoconid and metaconid almost the same height, although the protoconid is better developed. The protoconid presents a weak buccal widening. Very small paraconid, barely separated from the anterior cristids of the protoconid and metaconid; both join together, closing mesially the trigonid valley. Wide talonid, with a buccal hypoconid, clearly separated from the protoconid. A low, peripheral and crestiform entoconid is connected with the distal cristid of the hypoconid, clearly delimiting the talonid valley, which is flat and very wide. Basal cingulid very weak.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11698, association of a right p4, m1 and m2 (Text-fig. 4d 1–3). Neither the p4 nor the m1 show any differences from those described above. The m2 has a shortened talonid dominated by a very broad hypoconid. The cuspids are somewhat bunodont although they exhibit the same morphological arrangement as the previously described m2.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11697, right mandible with p3–m3 (Text-fig. 4e 1–2). It differs from NM-Pv 11695 in the greater gracility of the dentition, especially evident in m1 and m2, additionally the m2 has a relatively longer talonid. The m3 is sub-rounded and very small in size with respect to the m2.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11699, left mandible with p3–m3 (Text-fig. 4f 1– 3), in which the mandibular bone is only partially preserved in the mesial section (alveolus for p2 and p3–p 4 in situ), p3 unicuspid, p4 with a well-developed posterior cusp, and a thickened mesial cristid which does not form a distinct cusp. m1 robust and short, the trigonid is relatively high with respect to the talonid, the metaconid is strong. Talonid with well-developed entoconid, separated by the narrow valley of the hypoconid. The m2 is narrow with a highly developed protoconid; the talonid is short with well-developed cusps. The m3 is sub-rounded, simple, with only the protoconid clearly pronounced, a cingulum almost surrounding the entire molar.</p> <p>MN-Pv 11722, association of left p4–m3 (Text-fig. 4g 1–3). The p4 is tall, with the distal part widened. m1 with reduced metaconid, and talonid dominated by a strong hypoconid, the entoconid is subdivided. m2 with a narrow talonid dominated by a strong hypoconid. m3 is more compressed buccolingually than in other specimens</p> <p>D i s c u s s i o n. Paludocyon bohemicus was originally included by Schlosser (1899) in Pseudocyon, but its systematic position has since aroused controversy (Schlosser 1891, Kuss 1965). Ginsburg (1999), in his review of the Miocene carnivorans of Europe, included it in the clade comprising Amphicyon (Heizmannocyon) bohemicus - steinheimensis with Amphicyon steinheimensis FRAAS, 1885, choosing the latter as the type species of the new subgenus. Peigné et al. (2008) considered this subgenus as a synonym of Cynelos, and even pointed out the difficulties involved in relating these two species. Hunt (2003), without establishing its validity, points out that Heizmannocyon would be closer to Cynelos than to Amphicyon, an observation most likely influenced by the retention of primitive dental characters in Cynelos, as is also the case in P. bohemicus.</p> <p>As we have pointed out in the differential diagnosis of Paludocyon, it differs from Cynelos sufficiently to separate both genera. Cynelos lemanensis represents a lineage of Amphicyoninae that presents greater development of the crushing teeth, but has maintained slightly modified premolars and carnassials. Paludocyon shows a somewhat contrasting trend, characterized by a moderate increase in the size of the crushing teeth, widening of the m1 talonid, and a reduction in the size of the lower premolars. Some of these characters are found in Heizmannocyon steinheimensis but the morphology of the upper and lower molars of both genera differ to a large extent. The differences between Paludocyon and Pseudocyon sansaniensis are significant, as can be seen in our differential diagnosis. However, this comparison is limited due to the lack of well-preserved upper dentition of Pseudocyon sansaniensis, as recognized by Ginsburg (1961) and more recently by Peigné (2012). Morphologically, Heizmannocyon steinheimensis and Pseudocyon sansaniensis are similar; both share a significant reduction of the p4 as well as a narrow talonid in both the m1 and m2, but H. steinheimensis retains a large m2.</p> <p>Paludocyon bohemicus is morphologically quite different from Amphicyon major from Sansan (Ginsburg 1961); indeed, the latter shares many derived characters with Cynelos lemanensis, particularly those related to the high degree of development in the crushing dentition. Additionally, the m1 of A. major presents better development of the trigonid compared with the Paludocyon and Cynelo s species (Ginsburg 1961). This mixture of crushing molar dentition and the high degree of development of carnassial teeth characterizes the Amphicyon species and would appear to culminate in Megamphicyon.</p> <p>Paludocyon bohemicus is absent in the WintersoftWest Amphicyonidae association, although some authors considered Amphicyon dietrichi DEHM, 1950 as a very similar species, and have even proposed to synonymize both species (Kuss 1965, Peigné et al. 2008, Hunt and Stepleton 2015). However, the revision of P. bohemicus makes it possible to discard such a close relationship. The m1 morphology suggests a greater proximity between A. dietrichi and Pseudocyon sansaniensis than with Paludocyon bohemicus. A different case could occur with the mandible from the Thenay site determined as Cynelos bohemicus by Gagnaison et al. (2012). The excellent preservation of this mandible shows that the m1 has a very wide talonid, dominated by a powerful hypoconid, morphologically the dentition is very close to that of Heizmannocyon steinheimensis, being more derived than that of Paludocyon bohemicus. Finally, Jiangzuo et al. (2020) pointed out that the first record of Cynelos cf. bohemicus, together with Cynelos cf. helbingi, is in the middle Miocene Halamagai Formation from Northwestern China. The material is scarce and alternatively to its determination as two different forms, the three specimens (M1, M2 and m2) could correspond to a single species, clearly determined by these authors as Cynelos cf. helbingi.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFFEFFDEFC34FE9DFB154C05	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFF5FFDEFC75FE9CFB2F4F08.text	0385BC16FFF5FFDEFC75FE9CFB2F4F08.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megamphicyon KUSS 1965	<div><p>Genus Megamphicyon KUSS, 1965</p> <p>1965 Megamphicyon; Kuss, p. 66.</p> <p>T y p e s p e c i e s. Canis giganteus SCHINZ, 1825 (assigned to genus Amphicyon as Amphicyon giganteus by Laurillard (1843: 567)).</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. In Kuss (1965: 66).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFF5FFDEFC75FE9CFB2F4F08	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFF5FFDBFCEAFDA0FA5C48E1.text	0385BC16FFF5FFDBFCEAFDA0FA5C48E1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megamphicyon carnutense (ANTUNES et GINSBURG 1977)	<div><p>Megamphicyon carnutense (ANTUNES et GINSBURG, 1977)</p> <p>Text-figs 5, 6 Tabs 1b, 2b</p> <p>1965 Pseudocyon sansaniensis aff. sansaniensis LARTET 1851; Kuss, pp. 119–122, fig. 77.</p> <p>1977 Amphicyon giganteus carnutense; Antunes and Ginsburg, p. 341.</p> <p>1989 Amphicyon giganteus carnutense Antunes et Ginsburg, 1977; Ginsburg, p. 102, figs 1–4.</p> <p>2000b Amphicyon (Megamphicyon) lathanicus n. sp.; Ginsburg et al., p. 607, fig. 6.</p> <p>2003 Megamphicyon giganteus; Fejfar et al., p. 167.</p> <p>2016 Megamphicyon ‘ major – giganteus ’; Fejfar and Heizmann, p. 320, figs 7.2, 12.</p> <p>2019 Amphicyon carnutense; Jiangzuo et al., p. 2.</p> <p>H o l o t y p e. NMB S.O. 6531, left mandible with canine and p4–m2.</p> <p>T y p e l o c a l i t y. Chilleurs, France.</p> <p>A g e. Early Miocene, MN 3.</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. In Antunes and Ginsburg (1977).</p> <p>S t u d i e d m a t e r i a l f r o m T u c h o ř i c e. NMPv 11701 (TU 738911), right P4; NM-Pv 11703 (TU 738910), P4 left; NM-Pv 11704 (TU 73892), left M1; NM-Pv 11705 (TU 738912), left M2; NM-Pv 11706 (TU 738916), left M3; NM-Pv 11707 (TU 738920), left M3; NM-Pv 11708 (TU 73898), left p4; NM-Pv 11709 (TU 738919b), left p4; NMPv 11747 (TU 739152), left m1–m3; NM-Pv 11710 (TU 738918), left m1; NM-Pv 11711 (TU 73896), left m1; NMPv 11712 (TU 739154), left m1–m2; NM-Pv 11713 (TU 73914), left m2; NM-Pv 11714 (TU 73893), left m2; NMPv 11716 (TU 73897), left m2; NM-Pv 11717 (TU 73899), left m2; NM-Pv 11718 (TU 738913), right m2; NMPv 11696 (TU 739120/21), association of right m2 and m3; NM-Pv 11719 (TU 738914a), left m3.</p> <p>R e m a r k s. The large-sized Miocene amphicyonids of Western Europe have frequently been determined as Amphicyon giganteus (SCHINZ, 1825) or Megamphicyon giganteus (SCHINZ, 1825), depending on the authors (Kuss 1965, Ginsburg and Antunes 1968, Ginsburg 1999, Peigné et al. 2006). Some of the large species from the early Miocene have been classified in other amphicyonid genera such as Ysengrinia and Crassidia (Heizmann and Kordikova 2000) and even in Pseudocyon (Ginsburg 1967, 1999, Heizmann and Kordikova 2000). These three genera exhibit different degrees of hypercarnivorous dental adaptation (Morales et al. 2019), which serves to separate them from the Amphicyon major group, which reveals a tendency to enlarge the crushing molar surface.</p> <p>From at least the late Oligocene to the middle Miocene, a set of large forms is recorded in Europe, which are close in size and morphology to Amphicyon major, but show some differences which are very difficult to evaluate (Kuss 1965). Increased dental size can be recognised when comparing from the oldest form to the most modern ones, but due to the great variability in size and morphology, there are real difficulties involved in assigning these fossil assemblages to different taxa. Some of the older forms from the early Miocene (MN 2–3) have received different determinations, including Amphicyon giganteus carnutense ANTUNES et GINSBURG 1977, Amphicyon giganteus laugnacensis GINSBURG, 1989 and Amphicyon (Megamphicyon) lathanicus GINSBURG, CHENEVAL, JANVIER, POUIT et SEN, 2000 (see Ginsburg 2000b, 2002). However, the type species, Megamphicyon giganteus (SCHINZ, 1825), would be reserved for the largest species with molars similar in size to those from the type locality of Averay (France), also found in some European localities of MN 4–6 age (Artenay, Baigneaux, La Romieu, Pont Levoy and Arroyo del Val among others), where molar sizes can greatly exceed that of Amphicyon major (Ginsburg 1989, 1999, Peigné et al. 2006). However, there is a need for an indepth review of this group, a task that lies beyond the scope of the present research.</p> <p>D e s c r i p t i o n. NM-Pv 11701, right P4 (Text-fig. 5a 1–3). Quite elongated, with a relatively long metastyle, and a narrow mesially widened paracone, although without developing an authentic parastyle. The mesial crista of the paracone is strogly pronounced, with a small incision near the base, which changes its inclination, tending to become more horizontal and displaced buccally. Consequently, the base of the paracone is continued mesially. The protocone is moderate in size, placed in the mesial position, with a poorly separated cusp. Highly developed basal cingulum.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11703, P4 left.This tooth presents an intermediate size, somewhere between the two previous specimens; the buccal part of the metastyle is broken. The anterior crista of the paracone is clearly more vertical than in the other two specimens.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11704, left M1 (Text-fig. 5b 1–2). Molar with a subtriangular occlusal shape, the base of the lingual wall is somewhat broken; whether a basal cingulum existed is not evident. The paracone is robust and large, the metacone is low and somewhat smaller. Buccal styles scarcely developed. The large pyramidal protocone does not reveal the presence of a paraconule, but a rather large metaconule can be observed. Cingulum buccal very strong.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11705, left M2 (Text-fig. 5c). Molar quite wide, but narrow. Paracone very pronounced in relation to the metacone, which is somewhat displaced lingually. The protocone and the lingual cingulum are well developed.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11706, left M3 (Text-fig. 5d), compared to the previous molar it is smaller, but the height and strength of its buccal cones rule out any possible interpretation as an M3, although there is a strong constriction in the distal wall, which is similar to that observed in the specimen NMPv 11707, which is considered as an M3.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11707, left M3 (Text-fig. 5e). Similar in morphology to the M3 described above, but with very poorly developed cusps. The metacone is very small, almost lost. Occlusal kidney-shaped form. Very strong buccal cingulum, which represents almost the most developed element of the molar.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11708, left p4 (Text-fig. 6a 1–3). Premolar with strong and high distal cuspid. Distolingual cingulid well developed and talonid moderately expanded.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11709, left p4 (Text-fig. 6b 1–3), smaller than the previous specimen and differs from it in the strong constriction of the lingual wall.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11710, left m1 (Text-fig. 6c 1–3). Very robust molar, with a short paraconid and the mesial cristid distally inclined. High and very robust protoconid. Metaconid quite reduced, slightly displaced distally and with a somewhat swollen buccal wall. Short talonid, almost completely occupied by the hypoconid whose buccal base is somewhat widened apically. Entoconid low and elongated and joined to the distal hypoconid cristid. Weak basal cingulum. NM-Pv 11711, left m1 (Text-fig. 6d 1–3) more slender but with similar morphology to that described above. NMPv 11712, left m1–m2, the m1 is somewhat smaller than the other carnassial teeth; the associated m2 is similar to the morphotype of NM-Pv 11713 described below.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11747, left m1–m3 (Text-fig. 6e 1–3); slightly smaller size compared to the rest of the specimens attributed to this species, m1 very robust, with a short paraconid, and a mesial cristid distally inclined. High and very robust protoconid. Metaconid still strong. Short talonid, almost</p> <p>k1 k2 k3</p> <p>completely occupied by the hypoconid, entoconid low and elongated and joined to the distal hypoconid cristid. The buccal basal wall is broken. The m2 is relatively large with respect to m1, trigonid with high protoconid somewhat larger than the metaconid, small mesiocentral paraconid. Talonid large with strong hypoconid attached to a peripherical entoconid. The m3 is well developed with a dominant protoconid, and vestigial metaconid and hypoconid. The talonid is robust.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11713, left m2 (Text-fig. 6f 1–3). It has a relatively high trigonid, dominated by the protoconid, although the metaconid is also quite well developed. The protoconid base is buccally widened. Very small paraconid, poorly differentiated from the anterior cristids of the protoconid and metaconid, which are joined together, closing mesially the trigonid valley. Talonid wide, with a high buccal hypoconid, clearly separated from the protoconid. The crestiform entoconid, low and peripheral, is joined distally to the distal hypoconid cristid, thus strongly delimiting the talonid valley, which is flat and very wide. Moderate basal cingulum, only strong in the mesiobuccal area. Another two m2, NM-Pv 11714 (Text-fig. 6g 1–3) and NM-Pv 11712, display a similar morphology. NM-Pv 11718, right m2 (Text-fig. 6h 1–4), NM-Pv 11716, left m2 (Text-fig. 6i) and Pv 11717, left m2 (Text-fig. 6j 1–2) present a morphological pattern somewhat different from that of the teeth described above, in particular as a result of the narrow form of the talonid, which seems relatively more reduced.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11696, is an association of a right m2 and m3 (Text-fig. 6k 1–3). The m2 has a slightly better-developed paraconid than in the previously described specimens. The mesial wear facet with the m1 talonid is very clear. The m3 is oval in shape with a strong mesiobuccal protoconid, from which a mesial cristid extends to the lingual position, marking a small cuspid (paraconid). The talonid is poorly differentiated from the trigonid, and the hypoconid is very low and extends into a peripheral cristid that completely surrounds the talonid.</p> <p>D i s c u s s i o n. Megamphicyon carnutense was defined by Antunes and Ginsburg (1977) as a new subspecies Amphicyon giganteus carnutense, in the same paper where they defined a new species Amphicyon olisiponensis, from the locality of Quinta do Narigao, Lisbon Basin, Portugal. According to these authors, Amphicyon olisiponensis appears to show affinities with both the mandible classified by Kuss (1965) as Pseudocyon sansaniensis aff. sansaniensis from Chilleurs, France, and the primitive forms of Amphicyon giganteus. Antunes and Ginsburg (1977) highlighted the difficulties involved in distinguishing between the Chilleurs form and Amphicyon olisiponensis. However, the small morphological differences between these two forms, together with the more modern age of the Lisbon site, lead them to maintain a specific distinction between the two. Therefore, according to these authors the Chilleurs form should be classified as Amphicyon giganteus, but differences in size lead them to propose a new subspecies A. giganteus carnutense.</p> <p>Ginsburg (1989) added a third subspecies, Amphicyon giganteus laugnacensis, to distinguish the maxilla from Laugnac, determined by de Bonis (1973) as Amphicyon cf. astrei KUSS, 1962 from the other subspecies. He concluded that the Amphicyon giganteus species would comprise three successive stratigraphic subspecies; Amphicyon giganteus laugnacensis: MN 2; Amphicyon giganteus carnutense: MN 3; Amphicyon giganteus giganteus: MN 4a (Artenay), MN 4b (Baigneaux-en-Beauce), MN 5 (Pontlevoy, Falun d’Anjou). However, Ginsburg et al. (2000) subsequently reconsidered the taxonomic attribution of the Chilleurs mandible (type of Amphicyon giganteus carnutense), considering the determination by Kuss to be correct (1965). Hence, the validity of Amphicyon giganteus carnutense was discarded. Therefore, the materials from Les Beilleaux attributed by Ginsburg (1989) to this taxon remained unnamed, and he proposed the new species Amphicyon (Megamphicyon) lathanicus for this fossil considering Megamphicyon KUSS, 1965 as a valid subgenus.</p> <p>Nonetheless, we recognised many problems in the use of the denomination of Pseudocyon sansaniensis for the mandible from Chilleurs (Kuss 1965: fig. 77). The Chilleurs species possesses a more robust m1 than that of the mandible type of P. sansaniensis (Ginsburg 1961) but above all, it presents a significantly larger m2 relative to m1, in contrast with the small size of the m2 of the Sansan species. Thus, the decision of Antunes and Ginsburg (1977) remains valid; that the Chilleurs form and Amphicyon olisiponensis are very similar. Likewise, Ginsburg (1989) considered that A. olisiponensis could belong to the same group as Amphicyon giganteus. We think that the least confusing taxonomic hypothesis is that of Antunes and Ginsburg (1977), considering that the large Chilleurs form determined by Kuss (1965) as Pseudocyon sansaniensis should be called Megamphicyon carnutense, whilst Amphicyon (Megamphicyon) lathanicus should currently be considered as a synonym for the previous species, an opinion already expressed by Jiangzuo et al. (2019).</p> <p>The dentition from Tuchořice is similar to that of Megamphicyon carnutense, but some teeth manifest morphological variations that may suggest the presence of a second species; as is the case of three m2 (specimens NMPv 11718, NM-Pv 11716 and NM-Pv 11717), which possess a narrow talonid, and are slightly smaller than the specimens with a subquadrate talonid. However, similar differences are found in the m2 of the Falun d’Anjou described as Amphicyon lathanicus by Ginsburg (2000b), in which morphotypes with a wide and subquadrate talonid (m2, FS 6953) coexist with others possessing a narrower talonid (FS 6965). We therefore regard all described specimens as belonging to a single species, Megamphicyon carnutense.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFF5FFDBFCEAFDA0FA5C48E1	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFF0FFDBFC57FA38FC3A4A90.text	0385BC16FFF0FFDBFC57FA38FC3A4A90.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudarctini Morales & Fejfar & Heizmann & Wagner & Valenciano & Abella 2021	<div><p>Tribe Pseudarctini nov.</p> <p>T y p e g e n u s. Pseudarctos SCHLOSSER, 1899.</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. As in the Amphicyonini tribe, the molars tend to present a larger crushing surface, albeit displaying a different pattern with a greater mesiodistal length of the upper molars and buccolingual length in the lower molars, associated with a significant reduction of the carnassial teeth, and loss of the p4 distal accessory cuspid. Dehmicyon n. gen. is included as a basal form of this tribe.</p> <p>I n c l u d e d g e n e r a. Pseudarctos SCHLOSSER, 1899, Ictiocyon CRUSAFONT, VILLALTA et TRUYOLS, 1955 and Dehmicyon n. gen.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFF0FFDBFC57FA38FC3A4A90	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFF0FFD8FC5CF809FDB24BA3.text	0385BC16FFF0FFD8FC5CF809FDB24BA3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dehmicyon Morales & Fejfar & Heizmann & Wagner & Valenciano & Abella 2021	<div><p>Genus Dehmicyon n. gen.</p> <p>T y p e s p e c i e s. Amphicyon schlosseri DEHM, 1950</p> <p>(Wintershof- West, Germany; early Miocene, MN 3).</p> <p>E t y m o l o g y. In honour of Dr. Richard Dehm.</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. Pseudarctini with robust mandible, small mesial premolars (p1–p3), p4 unicuspidated. High m1 trigonid with strong metaconid; short and narrow talonid. m2 remaining long compared with m1. P4 robust with strong protocone. Slender M1 with subtriangular occlusal shape. M2 small compared to M1.</p> <p>Dehmicyon schlosseri (DEHM, 1950)</p> <p>Text-figs 7, 8</p> <p>1950 Amphicyon schlosseri n. sp.; Dehm, p. 20, figs 9–17.</p> <p>1965 Cynelos rugosidens schlosseri (DEHM) 1950; Kuss, p. 63– 66.</p> <p>1981? Cynelos schlosseri (Dehm), 1951; Ginsburg et al., p. 185, fig. 2.</p> <p>1989 Cynelos schlosseri; Ginsburg, p. 107.</p> <p>1996 Cynelos schlosseri (Dehm, 1950); Viranta, p. 22, fig. 7.</p> <p>1999 Cynelos schlosseri (DEHM, 1950); Ginsburg, p. 116.</p> <p>2003 Cynelos schlosseri; Peigné and Heizmann, p. 14.</p> <p>2008 C [ynelos] schlosseri; Peigné et al., p. 954.</p> <p>2015 Cynelos schlosseri; Hunt and Stepleton, p. 4</p> <p>H o l o t y p e. BSP 1937 II 13562, mandible and maxilla</p> <p>(Dehm 1950: figs 9–11). See Kuss (1965: 63).</p> <p>T y p e l o c a l i t y. Wintershof-West, Germany.</p> <p>A g e. Early Miocene, MN 3.</p> <p>E m e n d e d d i a g n o s i s. Same as genus.</p> <p>R e m a r k s. Dehmicyon schlosseri presents an interesting combination of morphological features, which enable it to be differentiated from Cynelos lemanensis (POMEL, 1846) and from the Ictiocyon - Pseudarctos group. Their separation from C. lemanensis and related species is unequivocal, as evidenced by Peigné and Heizmann (2003), in particular due to the poor development of the crushing molars, which suggests a more primitive morphological stage than the Cynelos - Amphicyon group species, typical representatives of the Amphicyoninae clade. Together with the Ictiocyon - Pseudarctos group, it shares the robustness of the jaw and the morphology of the lower p4 lacking a distal accessory cuspid (residual in some specimens). Other morphological characters that it shares, in particular with Ictiocyon, involve the strong development of the buccal wall of the M 1 in relation to the lingual area, the large size of the buccal cingulum and the robust development of the styles. However, in Ictiocyon the M1 is wide, especially on its occlusal surface, similar to that of the other molars (Crusafont et al. 1955). This tendency towards a larger crushing surface in the molar dentition is shared with the Cynelos - Amphicyon group, but in the Ictiocyon - Pseudarctos group the carnassials are significantly reduced (P4/m1), whereas in Cynelos and Amphicyon they tend to show an increase in size. In the latter genus, the upper molars maintain a strong buccal-lingual development, while in Ictiocyon they tend to present a sub-square occlusal shape.</p> <p>Ginsburg (1992) reviewed the species included in Pseudarctos, rejecting the proposal of Kuss (1965) that supported the existence of an anagenetic line formed by a single species Pseudarctos bavaricus with different temporal subespecies. The French author, proposing the existence of two genera; Ictiocyon CRUSAFONT, VILLALTA et TRUYOLS, 1955 new rank and Pseudarctos SCHLOSSER, 1899, but without accepting the validity of Ictiocyon dehmi the type species of Ictiocyon, which he considered as synonymous with Ictiocyon socialis. However, Ictiocyon dehmi shows more derived characteristics than Ictiocyon socialis. This is seen especially in the greater robustness of the premolars and the morphology of the m1–m2 talonid, which are wider and more developed than the trigonid. This tendency to increase the surface of the talonid relative to the trigonid became a significant feature in Pseudarctos. The morphology of m1 suggest that the mandible of Wintersoft-West BSP 1937 II 12301 determined as Ictiocyon socialis by Dehm (1950) could be closer to Ictiocyon dehmi than to I. socialis, so we suggest it be reclassified as Ictiocyon cf. dehmi.</p> <p>Dehmicyon can be interpreted as a similar form to Ictiocyon genus with which it appears to share derived characters such as mandibular robustness and loss of the posterior accessory cuspid on the p4; other features shared by both groups can be considered as primitive; e.g., the strong development of the styles and the buccal cingulum and the narrow morphology of the lingual area of the M1 or the small size of the second and third molars. Unfortunately, the absence of upper dentition in Ictiocyon socialis prevents direct comparison with the new genus. However, the morphology of the lower dentition supports the proposal that D. schlosseri is closer to I. socialis than I. dehmi.</p> <p>D. schlosseri has simultaneously a less specialized dental morphology than I. socialis (in particular seen in the reduced robustness of the m1) and greater size of the m2 with compared to the m1 (Text-fig. 8). These differences are sufficiently important to separate both species at a generic level. Dehmicyon schlosseri can be interpreted as a basal form of Pseudarctini, already far removed from the primitive Amphicyonini represented by Cynelos species.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFF0FFD8FC5CF809FDB24BA3	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
0385BC16FFF3FFC7FF5CF97BFF694FBA.text	0385BC16FFF3FFC7FF5CF97BFF694FBA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dehmicyon Morales & Fejfar & Heizmann & Wagner & Valenciano & Abella 2021	<div><p>Dehmicyon aff. schlosseri (DEHM, 1950)</p> <p>Text-figs 1, 9, Tab. 1c</p> <p>L o c a l i t y. Tuchořice, the Czech Republic.</p> <p>A g e. Early Miocene, MN 3.</p> <p>S t u d i e d m a t e r i a l. NM-Pv 11675 (TU 738922), right M1; NM-Pv 11676 (TU 738923), right M2.</p> <p>D e s c r i p t i o n. NM-Pv 11675, right M1 (Text-fig. 9a 1–4). Molar with elongated buccal wall and narrow lingual wall. Well-developed metastyle, separated by a notch from the mesial crista of the metacone. Strong parastyle. Large buccal cingulum. Paracone and metacone subequal in size. Strong pyramidal protocone, surrounded by a prominent cingulum that reaches the bases of both the paracone and the metacone. Reduced paraconule and metaconule, almost completely included in the cingulum.</p> <p>NM-Pv 11676, right M2 (Text-fig. 9b). Small size compared with the M1. Developed parastylar area. Mediumsized parastyle and metastyle. Weak buccal cingulum. Metacone much smaller than the paracone. Protocone in central position which, together with the paraconule and the metaconule, form a semicircle. Strong, wide lingual cingulum.</p> <p>D i s c u s s i o n. The size of these two molars is similar to that of the homologous teeth of Dehmicyon schlosseri from Wintershof-West described by Dehm (1950) (Text-fig. 7). Features shared with this species: 1) the greater buccal length with respect to the lingual length; 2) the strong development of the buccal cingulum and the buccal styles; 3) the similar paracone-metacone size ratio in the M1; 4) the small size of the M2 compared with the M1. Some of these characters were already pointed out by Peigné and Heizmann (2003) as being typical of D. schlosseri. However, in the morphology of the M1 from Tuchořice there are some differences in relation to this species; in particular, the greater development of the buccal cingulum and the mestastyle are striking; the protocone is placed in a central position, it is robust and surrounded by a very prominent cingulum which reaches the bases of the paracone and metacone, and in which the very reduced paraconule and metaconule are included. The differences in the morphology of the M2 are minor. Taking into account the highly variable dental morphology of most of the amphicyonid species, we classify these two molars from Tuchořice as Dehmicyon aff. schlosseri.</p> <p>Tribe Magericyonini nov.</p> <p>T y p e g e n u s. Magericyon PEIGNE, SALESA, ANTON et</p> <p>MORALES, 2008</p> <p>D i a g n o s i s. Amphicyoninae with hypercarnivorous dentition; premolars strongly reduced; metaconid reduced or absent in m1 and m2; robust P4; M1 with high buccal cusps; M2⁄m2 reduced relative to M1⁄ m1, M3/m3 vestigial.</p> <p>I n c l u d e d g e n e r a. Magericyon PEIGNE, SALESA, ANTON et MORALES, 2008 and? Pseudocyon LARTET, 1851</p> <p>R e m a r k s. Two species are recognized within genus Magericyon – M. anceps PEIGNÉ, SALESA, ANTÓN et MORALES, 2008 and M. castellanus (GINSBURG, MORALES et SORIA, 1981). Genus Pseudocyon is assigned to this tribe with some doubt.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0385BC16FFF3FFC7FF5CF97BFF694FBA	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	Morales, Jorge;Fejfar, Oldřich;Heizmann, Elmar;Wagner, Jan;Valenciano, Alberto;Abella, Juan	Morales, Jorge, Fejfar, Oldřich, Heizmann, Elmar, Wagner, Jan, Valenciano, Alberto, Abella, Juan (2021): The Amphicyoninae (Amphicyonidae, Carnivora, Mammalia) Of The Early Miocene From Tuchořice, The Czech Republic. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 126-144, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.011, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.011
