identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
7A0457D9E8C764208A693436557EB881.text	7A0457D9E8C764208A693436557EB881.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Macaca sp.	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Primates Cercopithecidae</p><p>Macaca sp.</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A right tibia, DMR-KS-05-04-04-1.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>The right tibia is complete (Fig. 6 A–D) and elongated (for measurements, see Appendix 1). On the proximal articular surface, the medial condyle is as large as the lateral one. The lateral condyle is convex anteroposteriorly (Fig. 6C). The posteromedial margin of the lateral condyle lacks a notch that indicates a single meniscus attachment. At the proximal end, the tibial tuberosity is developed. The shaft is elongated, anteriorly and laterally bowed, and not anteroposteriorly compressed (Fig. 6A, B). Distally, the trochlear surface is trapezoid in outline (Fig. 6D). The medial malleolus is well-developed and projects more anteriorly than posteriorly. The medial and lateral parts of the trochlear surface are equally separated by a weak median keel.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>Tibial morphology is relatively conservative within and among primates. Particularly, the morphological differences of tibiae among cercopithecoids are minimal (Turley et al. 2011). The distal part of tibiae of arboreal primates (including Hylobates and all arboreal cercopithecoids) is characterized by more rounded borders of the trochlear surface and a convex proximal border of the medial malleolus joining the trochlear surface (Tallman et al. 2013). The specimen DMR-KS-05-04-04-1 shows typical characters of the recent cercopithecoids whose tibial shaft is less mediolaterally compressed than those of great apes. However, the tibia from Khok Sung represents compatible dimensions with the tibiae of Hylobates (gibbon), Presbytis (surili), and Macaca (macaque). We suggest here to make a distinction between these genera based on the ratios of the greatest length of the tibia to the length or width of the proximal tibia (GL/Bp or GL/Dp). Based on these indices, the Khok Sung tibia falls within the range of recent Macaca (Tab. 2). According to the ratios, the shaft of both the surilis and gibbons is more elongated, compared to that of macaques. The distal tibia of DMR-KS-05-04-04-1 also shares some additional characters with that of macaques such as the poorly developed ball-shaped convexity and -articular facet (Sondaar et al. 2006) and the shape of the trochlear surface (Tallman et al. 2013: Fig. 5). We therefore attribute this material to Macaca sp.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7A0457D9E8C764208A693436557EB881	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
24E2EA209A9205A0B430929895818C8B.text	24E2EA209A9205A0B430929895818C8B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cuon sp.	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Carnivora Canidae</p><p>Cuon sp.</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A right ulna, DMR-KS-05-04-11-34; a right femur, DMR-KS-05-04-28-13.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>DMR-KS-05-04-11-34 is a half proximal ulna preserving complete parts from the olecranon to the midshaft (Fig. 6E, F). The olecranon tuber is well-developed . The upper margin of the olecranon is concave and possesses a slightly higher posterior part that extends laterally. The anconeal process is distinct. The medial and lateral coronoid processes diverge laterally (Fig. 6F). The trochlear notch is deep, forming nearly a semicircular surface for articulation (Fig. 6E).</p><p>The right femur preserves a complete proximal part and broken shaft (Fig. 6G, H). The greater trochanter is as high as the upper surface of the rounded femoral head. The intertrochanteric crest is straight and nearly oriented vertically (Fig. 6H). The upper border of the neck is flat. The lesser trochanter projects anteriorly and is situated at about 1.5 cm below the femoral head.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>The proximal ulna of canids is characterized by a bilobed and laterally compressed olecranon process, well-developed anconeal and lateral coronoid processes, and a laterally compressed shaft. The proximal crest of the olecranon is grooved anteriorly, but enlarged and rounded posteriorly (Tong et al. 2012). Pionnier-Capitan et al. (2011) suggested that in medial view the posteroproximal tuberosity of the olecranon of Canis is more proximally developed than in Cuon . The posteroproximal tuberosity of the Khok Sung ulna is as developed as that of Cuon . Furthermore, based on our comparisons with extant specimens, the Khok Sung canid ulna resembles that of Cuon alpinus because the olecranon bends more medially and the posterior border of the olecranon is straighter than those observed in Canis lupus . The Khok Sung specimen is slightly smaller than the recent Cuon alpinus (Tab. 3). However, it is much smaller than recent and fossil Canis lupus, as well as the paleosubspecies Cuon alpinus caucasicus (Tab. 3).</p><p>Living canids generally show a typical morphology of the proximal femur, characterized by their relatively vertical intertrochanteric crests, prominent lesser trochanter with the sharp crest extending downward along the shaft, moderately-sized greater trochanter, and slender shaft (France 2009, Tong et al. 2012). In Canis lupus, the lateral side of the caput femoris is obliquely prolonged towards the trochanteric fossa. The upper border of the neck is concave and shorter than those in Cuon alpinus (Ripoll et al. 2010). The femur DMR-KS-05-04-28-13 is canid-sized (Tab. 3) and is comparable in morphology to Cuon alpinus . For instance, the intertrochanteric crest is more oblique and straighter (nearly vertical and curved in Canis lupus), the caput femoris is round, and the upper border of the neck is long and flat (Ripoll et al. 2010).</p><p>Because the Khok Sung ulna and femur morphologically match better Cuon alpinus than Canis lupus, we identify these two postcranial specimens as belonging to Cuon sp.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/24E2EA209A9205A0B430929895818C8B	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
64ED4A201431E9DC7474BB5FA964059D.text	64ED4A201431E9DC7474BB5FA964059D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stegodon orientalis Owen 1870	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Proboscidea Stegodontidae</p><p>Stegodon cf. orientalis Owen, 1870</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A right DP4 (posterior part), DMR-KS-05-03-28-14; a left DP4 (anterior part), DMR-KS-05-03-19-7; a left M2, DMR-KS-05-03-29-1 (posterior part); a right M3, DMR-KS-05-03-22-19 (posterior part); a fragmentary tusk, DMR-KS-05-03-15-2; a left dp3 (anterior part), DMR-KS-05-04-01-8; two mandibles with m3-DMR-KS-05-03-08-1 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-08-2 (left); a right humerus fragment (proximal part), DMR-KS-05-03-10-5; a left humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-10-6; two ulna fragments (proximal parts)-DMR-KS-05-03-09-7 and DMR-KS-05-03-10-2; a femoral head fragment, DMR-KS-05-03-10-3; a right femur, DMR-KS-05-03-10-4; a right tibia fragment (distal part), DMR-KS-05-03-10-3; a right fibula, DMR-KS-05-03-00-124; two pelvis fragments-DMR-KS-05-03-10-11 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-10-12 (left); five vertebrae-DMR-KS-05-03-17-11, DMR-KS-05-03-10-7, DMR-KS-05-03-09-18, DMR-KS-05-03-10-1, and DMR-KS-05-03-28-20; a sacrum fragment, DMR-KS-05-03-10-8; two ribs-DMR-KS-05-03-10-13 and DMR-KS-05-03-10-14; three rib fragments-DMR-KS-05-03-09-6 (body), DMR-KS-05-03-09-45 (body), and DMR-KS-05-03-09-4 (head and neck).</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Upper dentition: both fragments of DP4 (DMR-KS-05-03-28-14: Fig. 7A, B) and DMR-KS-05-03-19-7: Fig. 7C) are slightly worn and unworn respectively (for measurements, see Tab. 4). The first specimen lacks two or three anterior ridges, whereas the second specimen preserves only the anterior cingulum and the first ridge. DMR-KS-05-03-28-14 has a rectangular outline in occlusal view, a convex crown base in lateral view, and a posterior cingulum. These characters indicate that this specimen belongs to a posterior lobe of DP4. The buccal and lingual surfaces of ridges display subvertically developed grooves. A median cleft is well-developed and runs from anteriorly to posteriorly in the middle part of the tooth, starting from the halfway height of the crown. The second anterior ridge of DMR-KS-05-03-28-14 shows displacement between the pretrite and posttrite halves, a character sometimes present in deciduous molars of derived Stegodon . Each ridge bears ten to twelve mammillae.</p><p>DMR-KS-05-03-29-1 (M2) preserves three posterior ridges with a small cingulum (Fig. 7E, F and Tab. 4). Two anterior ridges bear slightly worn mammillae with stronger abrasion on the buccal side. The posterior-most ridge is unworn and reduced in width. The outline of the buccal side is concave in occlusal view and the base of the crown is nearly straight in lateral view. The median cleft is weakly developed. The number of the mammillae on each ridge ranges from eight to eleven.</p><p>DMR-KS-05-03-22-19 (M3) preserves only three posterior ridges with a cingulum (Fig. 7G, H and Tab. 4). The ridges are slightly worn with more abraded buccal surfaces. The general outline of this tooth is similar to that of M2, but is comparatively wider and displays a more developed posterior cingulum. The median cleft is poorly developed. Each ridge consists of eight to ten mammillae.</p><p>A fragmentary tusk (DMR-KS-05-03-15-2) contains dentine (outer and inner layers), cementum, and a pulp cavity (Fig. 7 I–K). It is slightly curved upward and sub-rounded in cross-section for both the proximal and the distal section. A median longitudinal groove is present on the dorsal surface. The Schreger pattern commonly developed in elephantoid tusks is visible on the inner dentine layer. The maximum length of DMR-KS-05-03-15-2 is 159.2 mm and the mediolateral and dorsoventral diameters of the proximal cross-section are 73.88 and 70.56 mm, respectively. The outline of the tusk (DMR-KS-05-03-15-2) resembles Stegodon trigonocephalus in its more medial-laterally than the dorso-ventrally compressed cross-section. The macroscopic distinctive features in cross-section are similar to Stegodon sompoensis (van den Bergh 1999) but show the incremental lines more obviously.</p><p>Lower dentition: DMR-KS-05-04-01-8 (dp3) is heavily worn and comprises three preserved ridges and an anterior cingulum (Fig. 7D and Tab. 4). The buccal part of the third ridge is broken but it is presumably wider than the second ridge. The dp3 is subrectangular in outline or tapers towards the anterior part. The lateral sides between the first and second ridges are distinctly constricted.</p><p>Two hemi-mandibles of the same individual (DMR-KS-05-03-08-1 and DMR-KS-05-03-08-2) are moderately well-preserved (Tab. 4). The completely erupted m3 has eight ridges with small posterior cingulids (Fig. 7L, M). The symphysis and most of the ramus are broken away. The mandibular corpus is robust. We estimate the total number of ridges to be eleven based on the position on the corpus of the anterior root that supports two first lophs in Stegodon (Saegusa et al. 2005). The anteriormost preserved ridge is thus the third ridge, broken at its anterior and lateral parts in both specimens. The third to sixth ridges are strongly worn, whereas more posterior ridges are successively less damaged by abrasion. Valleys between the ridges are moderately filled with abundant cement. There is no median cleft. The m3 is much more elongated and contains five mammillae on the posteriormost ridge. The mammillae increase in size successively from the anterior to posterior ridge.</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial elements include two humeri (Fig. 8A, B), two ulnae, two femora (Fig. 8C, D), a tibia, a fibula (Fig. 8E), two pelvis girdles (Fig. 8F, G), five vertebrae, a sacrum (Fig. 8J), and five ribs (Fig. 8K, L) (for measurements, see Appendix 1). All postcranial bones excluding some vertebrae belong to a single individual because they were found together in association with two mandibles with the m3 (DMR-KS-05-03-08-1 and DMR-KS-05-03-08-2) and show fully fused epiphyses. This individual is a senior adult due to the heavy wear on the anterior lophs on the m3. Only two vertebrae (DMR-KS-05-03-09-18: Fig. 8H and DMR-KS-05-03-10-7: Fig. 8I) were found in association with that individual. The specimen DMR-KS-05-03-26-38 is a juvenile because the vertebral body is not fused.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>The proboscidean cheek teeth from Khok Sung are assigned to Stegodon because there are more than five ridges or loph(id)s on molars, V-shaped valleys between ridges on molars, and step-like worn surface reliefs on the enamel layer (Saegusa 1996, Saegusa et al. 2005). The Khok Sung material shows well-developed cheek tooth features of derived Stegodon (e.g., a greater number of ridges and mammillae, high filled cements between the ridges, and a high angled cliff on the enamel surfaces (step-like structure "type 3", in Saegusa (1996)).</p><p>The morphologies and ridge sizes of upper molars from Khok Sung are congruent with Chinese Stegodon orientalis (Tabs 5-7). However, we suggest that some comparative upper third molars of Stegodon orientalis (e.g., IVPP V5216-9) represent a total ridge number of ten (excluding anterior and posterior halfridges), different from the ridge formula ( ×11× for this species) given by van den Bergh et al. (2008: table. 3). The ridge formula of the M3 of Stegodon orientalis therefore ranges from ten to eleven. The m3 of Stegodon orientalis commonly has a total number of twelve ridges (excluding anterior and posterior halfridges). According to the fact that only a few comparative specimens of the m3 of Stegodon orientalis are complete with the total ridge number of twelve, some of them (e.g., IVPP V1777 and IVPP V5216-16, based on our observations) display a total of 11 ridges (excluding anterior and posterior halfridges). In Stegodon orientalis, the number of ridges on the m3 thus ranges from eleven to twelve. Stegodon insignis has a total number of ridges ranging from eleven to thirteen (van den Bergh et al. 2008). The ridge formula of Stegodon trigonocephalus trigonocephalus is almost thirteen (excluding anterior and posterior halfridges) (van den Bergh 1999). Another subspecies, Stegodon trigonocephalus praecursor, has a lower number of ridges ( ×11×, van den Bergh et al. 2008: table. 3). The m3 of the Khok Sung stegodontid share a similar ridge formula ( ×11×) with Stegodon orientalis from South China and Stegodon insignis from Punjab (Siwaliks). But it differs from Stegodon insignis in having more delicately folded enamel, more pronounced curvature of the crown, and V-shaped valleys (between the two ridges) slightly less filled by cements. The ridge sizes of Khok Sung lower third molar are almost comparable to those of Stegodon orientalis and Stegodon insignis, but are distinctly larger than other derived Stegodon species from Indonesia (Tab. 8). We thus identify hereby all cheek teeth as belonging to Stegodon cf. orientalis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/64ED4A201431E9DC7474BB5FA964059D	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
472F2184605D70B8738023E50C29F974.text	472F2184605D70B8738023E50C29F974.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Elephas sp.	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Proboscidea Elephantidae</p><p>Elephas sp.</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A fragmentary tusk, DMR-KS-05-03-22-1; a posterior fragment of a right lower molar, DMR-KS-05-03-17-12.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Upper tusk: DMR-KS-05-03-22-1 is a short fragmentary tusk. The dorsal side is partially broken away (Fig. 9A, B). This tusk curves slightly upward and is dorsoventrally compressed and probably obovoid or oval in cross-section (Fig. 9B, C). The Schreger pattern in the dentine is poorly developed or absent. The fractures of the cross-section are developed, perpendicular to the outer surface ("radiate cracking or fracture pattern") (van den Bergh 1999) (Fig. 9C). The maximum length of the preserved tusk is 196.1 mm and the mediolateral and dorsoventral diameters measured on the proximal cross-section are 71.3 and 49.1 mm, respectively.</p><p>Lower molar: DMR-KS-05-03-17-12 preserves only two adjoining worn plates of a high-crowned molar, distinctly more hypsodont than that of Stegodon (Tab. 4). The plates are thin, anteroposteriorly compressed, and closely spaced (Fig. 9D, E). The occlusal enamel loops or folds are small and thin, compared to Stegodon orientalis molars, single-layered, and almost irregular. The grinding surface of the anterior plate is buccally inclined (Fig. 9F), indicating this is a right molar.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>The fragmentary tusk (DMR-KS-05-03-22-1) is distinguished from DMR-KS-05-03-15-2 ( Stegodon orientalis) by a more rounded cross-section, a larger diameter, and a radiate fracture pattern with the development of concentric incremental lines (Fig. 9C). The outline of DMR-KS-05-03-22-1 resembles Elephas (e.g., Elephas maximus (Palombo and Villa 2001) and Elephas celebensis (van den Bergh 1999)). The lower molar is also congruent morphologically with Elephas (Maglio 1973, Zhou and Zhang 1974), but differs from Palaeoloxodon namadicus in its thinner and smoother enamel (Lydekker 1880, Zhou and Zhang 1974, Tshen 2013). We therefore assign these two specimens (fragmentary tusk and molar) to Elephas .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/472F2184605D70B8738023E50C29F974	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
6BF3FA81B12F723E4C87671733943D6C.text	6BF3FA81B12F723E4C87671733943D6C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhinoceros sondaicus Desmarest 1822	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Perissodactyla Rhinocerotidae</p><p>Rhinoceros sondaicus Desmarest, 1822</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A left P2, DMR-KS-05-03-00-128; a left P3, DMR-KS-05-03-22-17; a left M1, DMR-KS-05-03-00-129; a left M3, DMR-KS-05-03-00-127; a mandible with right (i2 and p2-m3) and left (p3-m3) tooth rows, DMR-KS-05-03-00-126; a partial mandible, DMR-KS-05-03-31-28; a fragmentary nasal bone, DMR-KS-05-03-00-56; a left scapula, DMR-KS-05-03-00-58; a left humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-31-3; a right metacarpus II, DMR-KS-05-03-28-29; a metacarpus III, DMR-KS-05-03-22-49; a right metacarpus IV, DMR-KS-05-04-05-15; a left tibia, DMR-KS-05-03-00-52; a right calcaneus, DMR-KS-05-04-27-19; a left astragalus, DMR-KS-05-03-26-23.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Upper dentition: P2 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-128: Fig. 10A), M1 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-129: Fig. 10C), and M3 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-127: Fig. 10D) are presumably from the same individual because they were found together at the same spot. The upper cheek teeth are lophodont (for measurements, see Tab. 9). Premolars are completely molarized (Fig. 10A, B) and molars exhibit well-preserved crochets. The M3 is triangular in occlusal outline and displays a well-developed parastyle, ectometaloph, medifossette, and hypocone, but a less developed parastyle fold (Fig. 10D).</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition: a mandible (DMR-KS-05-03-00-126) preserves both sides of cheek tooth rows (right p2-m3 and left p3-m3), but most of its symphysis and entire ramus are broken off (Fig. 10 E–G) (for measurements, see Appendix 2). The posterior edge of the mandibular symphysis ends nearly at the middle part of p3. The ventral margin of the mandible is convex in lateral view (Fig. 10E). The mental foramen is situated below the p3. In ventral view, the small foramen is present at the central portion of the mandibular symphysis and the lingual mandibular outline is U-shaped (Fig. 10F, G). Only the basal part of a right tusk-like incisor is preserved in its socket. Another specimen DMR-KS-05-03-31-28 preserves a nearly complete mandibular symphysis and left p2 and p3 sockets (Fig. 10H, I). The left mandibular body behind the p3 is broken away. All lower cheek teeth are heavily worn and rectangular in occlusal outline (Fig. 10F) (for measurements, see Tab. 9).</p><p>Nasal: a nasal bone (DMR-KS-05-03-00-56) is short and robust, bending downward and narrowing anteriorly towards the tip (Fig. 10J). The anterior surface is nearly straight in lateral view (Fig. 10K), whereas its ventral surface is flattened at the central suture. This nasal bone is most similar to Rhinoceros sondaicus (e.g., specimen MNHN-ZMO-1985-159), because its anterior part is pointed rather than rounded (Colbert 1942). In comparison, Rhinoceros unicornis displays a convex anterior surface in lateral view and a well-developed horn protuberance of the nasal region. The maximum length and width of the nasal are 131.1 mm and 88.8 mm, respectively.</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial elements include a scapula (Fig. 11A, B), a humerus (Fig. 11 C–E), three metacarpal bones (metacarpus II, III, and IV: Fig. 11 F–H), a tibia, a calcaneus (Fig. 11I), and an astragalus (Fig. 11J). All postcranial remains are comparable in size to the recent material ( Guérin 1980) (for measurements, see Appendix 1).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>Four isolated cheek teeth (P2, P3, M1, and M3) assigned to Rhinoceros sondaicus are characterized by the following morphological features: a presence of the moderately developed crochet, sinuosity of the ectoloph, distinct parastyle fold, and deeper median valley compared to the posterior valley, and the absences of an antecrochet, protocone fold, and metacone bulge on M3. All of these characters coincide with the upper molars of Rhinoceros sondaicus (Pocock 1945, Hooijer 1946, Zin-Maung-Maung-Thein et al. 2006, Groves and Leslie 2011).</p><p>Large tusk-like incisors (i2) are notably typical of Asian rhinoceroses. The two small alveoli corresponding to the lost central incisors are autapomorphic of Rhinoceros (Groves and Leslie 2011). Our observations on the recent mandible iPHEP M05.5.001.B and MNHN-ZMO-1985-159 demonstrate that an alveolus extension of the lower incisors that reach posteriorly to the lingual side of the p2 is a characteristic of both living Javan ( Rhinoceros sondaicus) and Indian ( Rhinoceros unicornis) rhinoceroses (Tong and Guérin 2009). This feature efficiently distinguishes Rhinoceros from the Sumatran rhinoceros, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, where the alveoli of the lower incisors do not extend as far (Tong and Guérin 2009). In the mandibles DMR-KS-05-03-00-126 and DMR-KS- 05-03-31-28, the lower incisor alveoli extend posteriorly into the mandibular symphysis, ventral to the lingual side of the p2 (Fig. 11H, I). The latter specimen also shares similar mandibular dimensions (Appendix 2) and morphology with the former specimen.</p><p>Isolated lower molars of rhinoceroses from Khok Sung are difficult to assign to either Rhinoceros unicornis or Rhinoceros sondaicus due to heavy wear. In addition, there is a significant size overlap between these two species ( Guérin 1980). The lengths of lower cheek teeth and molar rows provide a better distinction (little overlap in size) than those of isolated teeth. The lengths and widths of the cheek teeth on the mandible DMR-KS-05-03-00-126 fall almost within the range of Rhinoceros sondaicus, with the exception of some specimens (p3, p4, and m3) that fit well with the larger-sized Rhinoceros unicornis (Tab. 9). However, the lengths of the mandibular cheek tooth and molar rows of this specimen fall within the ranges of Rhinoceros sondaicus (211.5-257 mm and 126.5-147 mm, respectively) and outside of the ranges for Rhinoceros unicornis ( Guérin 1980: table. 6). The two mandibles, DMR-KS-05-03-00-126 and DMR-KS-05-03-31-28, are thus assigned to Rhinoceros sondaicus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6BF3FA81B12F723E4C87671733943D6C	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
6769359E967575063AE4DC8523E045B7.text	6769359E967575063AE4DC8523E045B7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus 1758	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Perissodactyla Rhinocerotidae</p><p>Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A left mandible with p3-m3, DMR-KS-05-03-17-13; a left p2, DMR-KS-05-03-19-4; a right M1, KS-05-03-18-X; a left femur, DMR-KS-05-03-00-63; a left astragalus, DMR-KS-05-03-00-67.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Upper dentition: a relatively worn M1 (DMR-KS-05-03-18-X) is nearly square in outline and displays a flattened ectoloph and a well developed crochet, medifossette, and posterior fossette (Fig. 12A) (for measurements, see Tab. 9).</p><p>Mandible and lower dentition: a hemi-mandible (DMR-KS-05-03-17-13) is strongly compressed laterally and preserves a partial mandibular ramus and body with worn cheek teeth, except for the m3 which is unbroken (Fig. 12 C–E) (for measurements, see Appendix 2). The lingual portion along the mandible is entirely broken. The mandibular depth below the m3 is higher than that of Rhinoceros sondaicus . An isolated p2 is relatively worn and broken at its posterior part (Fig. 12B). At the lingual side of the p2, the anterior valley is slightly developed, whereas the posterior valley is prominent.</p><p>Postcranial remains: an isolated femur (Fig. 12F, G) and astragalus are comparable in size to Rhinoceros unicornis, but are larger than Rhinoceros sondaicus ( Guérin 1980) (for measurements, see Appendix 1).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>We assign the M1 (DMR-KS-05-03-18-X) to Rhinoceros unicornis according to the presence of the flattened ectoloph and enclosed medifossette (on a worn specimen), as well as its larger size than that of Rhinoceros sondaicus . These upper molar features are characteristic of Rhinoceros unicornis (Colbert 1942). For the lower dentition, the size of the isolated p2 (DMR-KS-05-03-19-4) and the molar row length of the mandible DMR-KS-05-03-17-13 (Tab. 9) are comparable to those of recent Rhinoceros unicornis (31-32 mm and 147.5-161 mm, respectively) ( Guérin 1980: table. 6). Therefore, another species of rhinoceroses, Rhinoceros unicornis, is identified at Khok Sung.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6769359E967575063AE4DC8523E045B7	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
26913FCDE46C218A37ACD0C3C1F35133.text	26913FCDE46C218A37ACD0C3C1F35133.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sus barbatus Mueller 1838	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Suidae</p><p>Sus barbatus Mueller, 1838</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A left maxillary fragment with P3-M2, DMR-KS-05-04-19-2; two left M2-DMR-KS-05-04-19-5 and DMR-KS-05-03-18-23 (posterior portion); two right M3-DMR-KS-05-04-03-4 and DMR-KS-05-04-19-4 (anterior portion); two mandible with two tooth rows-DMR-KS-05-03-15-1 (right: i1, i2, c1, p2, and p3 and left: i1, i2, c1, and p2-m2) and DMR-KS-05-04-19-1 (right: i1, i2, c1, and p1-m3 and left: i1, i2, c1, and p1-p4); a left posterior fragment of m3, DMR-KS-05-04-19-3; a right humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-26-8.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Upper dentition: DMR-KS-05-04-19-2 is a maxillary tooth row preserving a slightly worn P3 to M2 (Fig. 13A). The P3 and P4 show Sus -like patterns with distinctly pre- and poststyles on the buccal side. On the P3, the paracone is well-developed and the postcrista projects posterobuccally. On the P4, three main cusps (protocone, paracone, and metacone) are distinct and the protofossa is present. Upper molars are unworn to slightly worn and exhibit distinct main (protocone, paracone, metacone, tetracone, and pentacone) and accessory (tetrapreconule, pentapreconule, and ectoconule) cusps. The posterior cingulum on the M2 is more developed than on the M1 (Fig. 13 A–C). The M3 (DMR-KS-05-04-03-4: Fig. 13D) is unworn and subtriangular in outline and has a distinct anterior cingulum, pentacone, and pentapreconule and bulky accessory cusps. Another M3 (DMR-KS-05-04-19-4) does not preserve a posterior part but has well-developed main cusps, anterior cingulum, median valley, tetrapreconule, and ectoconule (Fig. 13E). The cheek teeth of DMR-KS-05-04-19-4 are larger than those of DMR-KS-05-04-03-4.</p><p>Mandible and lower dentition: DMR-KS-05-03-15-1 is incomplete, lacking the body and ascending ramus, broken posterior to the right p3 and to the left m2 (Fig. 13F, G) (for measurements, see Appendix 3). The mandible is inflated. The small mental foramen is present below the diastema between p1 and p2. Only the i3 and p1 are missing. The left p2 is not aligned along the cheek tooth row due to the deformation. The specimen DMR-KS-05-04-19-1 preserves a complete symphysis and a right body with the tooth row. The ramus is broken away (Fig. 13H, I). The mandibular body is successively inflated. The mental foramina are situated below the diastema between p1 and p2. For the specimen DMR-KS-05-04-19-1, the teeth are complete and moderately to heavily worn but the third incisors are missing.</p><p>Lower incisors show a chisel-like appearance with long roots. The i2 is larger than the i1. Lower canines are slender and pointed, and curve backward. The lower canines of the mandible DMR-KS-05-03-15-1 belong to a male individual because of a more sharply triangular section (Hillson 2005) (Fig. 13F). The mandible DMR-KS-05-04-19-1 possesses a female canine characterized by more rounded cross-sections and well-developed roots (Hillson 2005) (Fig. 13H). The lower canines of the male specimen are more laterally inclined (about 30° from the cheek teeth) than those of the female individual (about 15°). The cross-section outlines of male canines (DMR-KS-05-03-15-1) are of the “verrucosic” type in which the posterior side is narrower than the labial one (Fig. 13F). All lower cheek teeth exhibit bunodont patterns with accessory tubercles, like in Sus . The lower cheek teeth increase in size from anteriorly to posteriorly (Tab. 10). Lower premolars are slightly to moderately worn. The p1 is unicuspid. Other premolars are tricuspid. All cuspids are sharp. The highest cuspid on the premolars is the metaconid. Lower molars are moderately to heavily worn and rectangular in outline (Fig. 13 F–J). The lower molars show complex occlusal patterns with well-developed main cuspids (protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, entoconid, and pentaconid) and a bulky median column (hypopreconulid). The m2 is much larger and has a more developed posterior cingulid than the m1 (Fig. 13F, H). The m3 (DMR-KS-05-04-19-1) is elongated posteriorly (Fig. 13H). It has a well-developed talonid with bulky main and accessory cuspids (pentaconid, pentapreconulid, hexaconid, heptaconid). Another isolated posterior fragment (talonid) of the m3 (DMR-KS-05-04-19-3) is also elongated, as long as that of DMR-KS-05-04-19-1. This specimen exhibits smooth occlusal surfaces with wear and well developed main and accessory cuspids (Fig. 13J). The m3 is longer than the combination of m1 and m2 (Tab. 10).</p><p>Postcranial bone: DMR-KS-05-03-26-8 is a complete humerus (Fig. 13 K–N), characterized by its prominent tubercle slightly overhanging the large bicipital groove (Fig. 13K), proximal part becoming wider than long (Fig. 13K), mesially flat and laterally compressed shaft, distinct deltoid ridge starting at the mid-shaft (Fig. 13L, M), large supinator ridge and supratrochlear foramen (Fig. 13M), shallow musculo-spiral groove (Fig. 13N), and small deltoid tuberosity (Fig. 13N). The size and morphology of the humerus DMR-KS-05-03-26-8 resemble those of recent Sus barbatus (for measurements, see Appendix 1).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>We compare our material to some Pleistocene Southeast Asian suid species, although only two distinct suid species, Sus scrofa and Sus barbatus, are known from many Pleistocene localities of mainland Southeast Asia. The sizes of the Khok Sung material are obviously larger than those of Pleistocene and extant Indonesian suids ( Sus brachygnathus, Sus macrognathus, Sus verrucosus, and Sus celebensis) (Tab. 10). The Khok Sung suid material is comparable in size to Sus scrofa and Sus barbatus . The two suid mandibles from Khok Sung also show some distinctive taxonomic characters of Sus scrofa and Sus barbatus . For example, the mandible is not laterally enlarged or swollen and the diastema from p1 to p2 is longer than from c1 to p 1, which are only characteristics of some species of Sus: Sus scrofa, Sus celebensis, and Sus barbatus (Groves 1997). The lower premolar rows on the mandibles are aligned along the mandible, unlike Sus verrucosus and Sus celebensis in which the premolar rows diverge anteriorly (Groves 1997).</p><p>However, it is difficult to distinguish Sus scrofa from Sus barbatus only based on the cheek teeth because both species overlap in size (Tab. 10) and show almost similar dental patterns. The main differential characters between Sus scrofa and Sus barbatus are defined on the basis of the shape of lower canines in male individuals, whether the outline of the cross-section is of the “scrofic” (i.e. the posterior side is wider than the labial one ( Sus scrofa)) or “verrucosic” ( Sus barbatus) type (Badoux 1959, Hardjasasmita 1987). Similarly, this distinctive feature is demonstrated by the lower male canine index (the width of labial surface as a percentage of the width of posterior surface) (Groves 1981, 1997). The canine index ranges from 61.5 to 109.1 for recent Sus scrofa and from 105.6 to 144.4 for extant Sus barbatus (Groves 1981: table. 1). The lower canines of the male mandible DMR-KS-05-03-15-1 show the verrucosic type with the canine index of Sus barbatus (for the detailed calculation see Tab. 11). We also provide the canine index of the female specimen DMR-KS-05-04-19-1 in Tab. 11. A minor distinctive character between Sus scrofa and Sus barbatus is differences of the posterior accessory median cuspid (pentapreconulid) on the talonid. The pentapreconulid on the m3 is small or absent in Sus barbatus (Badoux 1959). For other molar characters, Sus barbatus shows more complex patterns with accessory tubercles and more rugose enamel than in Sus scrofa (Tougard 1998, Bacon et al. 2011). However, the latter character is useless to make a distinction between both suid species according to our observations on the recent material of Sus barbatus . The enamel surfaces of the molars in Sus barbatus are often smooth or even sometimes smoother than in Sus scrofa .</p><p>The female mandible (DMR-KS-05-04-19-1) and other isolated teeth are assigned to Sus barbatus according to those described features. We also suggest that Pleistocene Sus barbatus probably shows evidence of sexual size dimorphism because the female specimen DMR-KS-05-04-19-1 is markedly smaller than the male specimen DMR-KS-05-03-15-1, as seen in the recent population.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/26913FCDE46C218A37ACD0C3C1F35133	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
7F9169A0C61DACF8D5D6E5B9297E8B72.text	7F9169A0C61DACF8D5D6E5B9297E8B72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Axis axis (Erxleben 1777) Erxleben 1777	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Cervidae</p><p>Axis axis (Erxleben, 1777)</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Four crania-DMR-KS-05-04-18-50 (with two antlers), DMR-KS-05-03-00-30 (with left partial and right broken antlers), DMR-KS-05-03-18-X9 (with pedicles), and DMR-KS-05-03-27-1 (with pedicles); two right complete antlers-DMR-KS-05-03-31-30 and DMR-KS-05-03-22-4; a nearly complete left antler, DMR-KS-05-04-4-1; five right fragmentary antlers-DMR-KS-05-03-18-21, DMR-KS-05-03-19-82, DMR-KS-05-03-28-22, DMR-KS-05-06-22-2, and DMR-KS-05-03-28-1; eight left fragmentary antlers-DMR-KS-05-03-00-12, DMR-KS-05-03-19-81, DMR-KS-05-03-22-2, DMR-KS-05-03-24-1, DMR-KS-05-04-09-1, DMR-KS-05-03-19-13, DMR-KS-05-03-26-21, and DMR-KS-05-03-08-17; two left fragmentary maxilla-DMR-KS-05-03-28-6 (with M1-M3) and DMR-KS-05-03-08-31 (with P3, P4, and M1 root); a right P4, DMR-KS-05-04-01-3; a left M1, DMR-KS-05-04-28-5; a left M2, DMR-KS-05-03-14-5; thirteen right mandibles-DMR-KS-05-03-14-2 (with m3), DMR-KS-05-03-20-1 (with p4-m3), DMR-KS-05-03-20-2 (with m2 and m3), DMR-KS-05-03-22-7 (with m2 and m3), DMR-KS-05-04-03-1 (with p2-m3), and DMR-KS-05-03-27-3 (with m2 and m3), DMR-KS-05-03-19-1 (with p2-m3), DMR-KS-05-03-22-8 (with m2 and m3), DMR-KS-05-04-01-1 (with p2-m3), DMR-KS-05-03-24-4 (with m2), DMR-KS-05-03-26-12 (with m2 and m3), DMR-KS-05-04-7-10 (with p3, m1, and m2), and DMR-KS-05-03-26-10 (with p2-m1); eight left mandibles-DMR-KS-05-03-18-22 (with p2), DMR-KS-05-03-22-6 (with m1-m3), DMR-KS-05-03-27-22 (with p3-m2 sockets and broken m3), DMR-KS-05-04-09-2 (with p3, p4, m1 and m2 sockets, and m3), DMR-KS-05-03-00-102 (with p4 and m1), DMR-KS-05-03-19-2 (with m1-m3), DMR-KS-05-03-23-1 (with p2 and p3 roots and p4-m3), and DMR-KS-05-03-29-1 (with p2-m3); a left m1, DMR-KS-05-04-28-6; three m2-DMR-KS-05-03-25-4 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-00-104 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-22-11 (left); four left m3-DMR-KS-05-04-9-4, DMR-KS-05-03-22-9, DMR-KS-05-04-01-2, and DMR-KS-05-03-08-33; three right fragmentary humeri (distal part)-DMR-KS-05-03-13-4, DMR-KS-05-04-11-32, and DMR-KS-05-03-17-17; six metacarpi-DMR-KS-05-03-18-2 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-19-3 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-22-28 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-08-2 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-30-20 (right proximal fragment), and DMR-KS-05-03-19-37 (left); a right fragmentary femur, DMR-KS-05-03-27-4 (distal part); three metatarsi-DMR-KS-05-03-26-3 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-29-30 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-15-14 (left).</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Crania and upper dentition: four crania are almost complete, lacking only the anterior portions (e.g., nasal, jugal, palatine, and maxilla) (Fig. 14 A–D). The specimen DMR-KS-05-04-18-50 shows nearly complete antlers, lacking only the left brow tine (Fig. 14A, B). The cranium DMR-KS-05-03-00-30 possesses a right antler portion preserving the complete brow tine but the broken main beam (Fig. 14C, D). The specimens DMR-KS-05-03-18-X9 (Fig. 14E) and DMR-KS-05-03-27-1 (Fig. 14F, G) preserve most of the rear part of the skull but lacks zygomatic arcs and antler portions. The specimen DMR-KS-05-03-27-1 preserves a deformed frontal area and broken pedicles (Fig. 14F). The basioccipital and basisphenoid are subtriangular in ventral view and show well-deveoped anterior and posterior tuberosities with a longitudinal groove running along the central part (Fig. 14B, D, G). The lateral edges of the basioccipital and basisphenoid are concave like in Axis . The foramina ovale are large and open ventrolaterally. The shed antlers are characterized by three main tines, smooth surfaces, a short pedicle and brow tine, a long and slender main beam, a high angle (about 100-120°) between the main beam and the brow tine, and a well-developed burr (Fig. 14A, C, H–L). A small ornamented tine (or knob) is sometimes present along the dorsal surface of the brow tine or at the main beam-brow tine junction (Fig. 14C, J–L). The main beam is oriented upward, laterally, and posteriorly, and consists of forked tines apically. At the antlered crown, the inner tine is much shorter than the outer one (Fig. 14A, H, I). The skull and antler exhibit a typical arrangement of recent Axis axis (e.g., the orientation of the main beam and brow tine, the bifurcation at the apical crown tine, and the shape of the basioccipital and basisphenoid) (for measurements, see Appendix 4).</p><p>P3 and P4 are similar to recent Axis, characterized by well-developed styles, medial cristae (more distinct on the P4), and posterolingual fossettes (Fig. 15A) (for measurements, see Tab. 12). On the P4, the medial cristae join the postmetacrista and divide the fossa into two islands (Fig. 15A, C). Upper molars display distinct styles (particularly the mesostyle), entostyles, and anterior cingula (Fig. 15B, D, E). The metaconule fold is slightly developed. The M2 is slightly wider than the M3 (Tab. 12). The posterior lobe of the M3 is reduced in width (Fig. 15B).</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition: twenty one mandibles range from fragmentary (preserving only the broken corpus) to nearly complete (lacking only the ascending ramus and coronoid process) individuals (Fig. 15 F–O) (for measurements, see Appendix 5). The mandibular symphyses are almost complete, but all incisors are missing. The protoconulid of the p2 is poorly-developed or absent (Fig. 15F, H, J).</p><p>Lower third and fourth premolars exhibit a well developed metaconid which projects obliquely in occlusal view, posterior to the entoconid (Fig. 15F, H, J) (for measurements, see Tab. 12). The latter conid joins the posthypocristid, forming a back valley on moderately worn teeth. The metaconid is bifurcated (two separated flanges: pre- and postmetacristids) on the p4. All lower molars are morphologically characterized by their brachyodont crowns and well-developed stylids (parastylid, metastylid, and entostylid), ectostylids (basal pillars), and anterior cingulids (also called "goat fold") (Fig. 15 F–Q). On the m3, the posterior ectostylid is absent (Fig. 15F, G, J–Q). The third lobe is ring-shaped as it is present on the recent specimens (e.g., MNHN-ZMO-1901-547, MNHN-ZMO-1988-153, ZSM-1951-70, and ZSM-1961-3) (Fig. 15F, P). But the third lobe is sometimes small and poorly-developed, as observed from the recent specimen ZSM-1963-27 (Fig. 15J, L, N). The back fossa is present on unworn to slightly worn teeth (Fig. 15F, P), but absent on moderately to heavily worn ones (Fig. 15L, N). The posthypoconulidcristid is well-developed, a small crest protruding slightly more posterolingually (Fig. 15F).</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial bones include isolated humeri (Fig. 16 A–B), metacarpi (Fig. 16 C–H), a femur (Fig. 16I, J), and metatarsi (Fig. 16 K–M). The humerus and femur are fragmentary. We identify here these fossil postcranial bones based on the size and proportion compared with the extant specimens (Tab. 13 and Appendices 1, 7, 9-10, and 12).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>The antlers are useful to distinguish among the cervids, whereas the morphologies of lower cheek teeth are identical among Axis . The skulls, antlers, and teeth from Khok Sung are morphologically similar to those observed from recent Axis axis . This suggests a morphological stasis in the evolution of antlers and teeth for this species.</p><p>Based on our observation on the extant comparative material of Axis axis (e.g., the specimens MNHN-ZMO-1901-547, MNHN-ZMO-1988-153, ZSM-1951-70, and ZSM-1958-88), we thus demonstrate some dental morphological variation within species. The m3 of Axis axis appears more morphologically variable than the other molars, such as the more or less developed posterior talonids and the presence/absence of back fossae. The cheek teeth of extant Axis axis are relatively similar to those of Axis porcinus (e.g., the specimens MNHN-ZMO-1904-60, MNHN-ZMO-1962-4188, ZSM-1968-493, and ZSM-1969-63). However, Axis axis differs from Axis porcinus in having less developed anterior cingulids on the lower molars and the presence of back fossae on the m3. Recent Axis axis represents an intermediate size between Axis porcinus and two cervid species ( Panolia eldii and Rusa unicolor) (Tab. 14). Axis axis from Khok Sung also follows the size tendency of recent populations (Figs 17 and 18).</p><p>Compared to other Pleistocene cervid species, the cheek teeth of Axis axis from Khok Sung are smaller than those of Axis shansius from Anhui and Yunnan (China) and of Axis javanicus from Ngandong and Buitenzorg in Java and Carnul Cave in India, but are larger than those of Axis lydekkeri from Trinil H. K. (Java) (Figs 17 and 18). Although, Axis javanicus is closely related to or even synonymous with Axis axis according to Meijaard and Groves (2004), it is considered as a valid species due to studies of the geometric morphometric analysis performed on the teeth (Gruwier et al. 2015). According to the scatter diagrams of the dental sizes (Figs 17 and 18), Thum Wiman Nakin and Thum Prakai Phet fossil teeth assigned to Axis porcinus (Tougard 1998, Filoux et al. 2015) are much larger than their extant populations and those from Khok Sung. Although the Pleistocene hog deer probably show clinal variation in size ( Bergmann’s rule) in re sponse to colder climates. The fossil teeth attributed to Axis porcinus from Thum Wiman Nakin and Thum Prakai Phet, identified by Tougard (1998) and Filoux et al. (2015), possibly reveal a double size (or more) of the recent population. We suggest that these fossils likely belong to either other larger or new cervid species that lived during the Pleistocene across mainland Southeast Asia. We also cast doubt on the occurrence of Axis porcinus in the Middle Pleistocene of Boh Dambang, Cambodia (Demeter et al. 2013). The existence of Axis porcinus in Southeast Asia during the Middle Pleistocene is still doubtful.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7F9169A0C61DACF8D5D6E5B9297E8B72	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
17791942D4CBAA268A952F0775E5615B.text	17791942D4CBAA268A952F0775E5615B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Panolia eldii (M'Clelland 1842) M'Clelland 1842	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Cervidae</p><p>Panolia eldii (M'Clelland, 1842)</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A cranium with a right partial antler, DMR-KS-05-04-20-4; a right P2, DMR-KS-05-03-15-11; two left M1-DMR-KS-05-03-00-24 and DMR-KS-05-03-00-25; six M2-DMR-KS-05-03-00-23 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-30-5 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-3-4 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-30-6 (left posterior lobe), DMR-KS-05-03-27-7 (left), and DMR-KS-05-04-3-5 (left); five M3-DMR-KS-05-03-27-6 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-9-1 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-8-3 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-00-22 (left), and DMR-KS-05-04-9-2 (left); two left mandibles-DMR-KS-05-03-27-2 (with p2-m3) and DMR-KS-05-04-9-5 (with p2-m2); a right i1, DMR-KS-05-03-29-2; a right scapula, DMR-KS-05-06-24-4; a left humerus, DMR-KS-05-04-11-35; a right fragmentary humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-18-1 (proximal part); three radii-DMR-KS-05-03-31-10 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-11-3 (right), and DMR-KS-05-03-19-16 (left); a right metacarpus, DMR-KS-05-03-24-2; two right femora-DMR-KS-05-03-27-11 and DMR-KS-05-03-17-36; five fragmentary femora-DMR-KS-05-04-05-38 (right proximal part), DMR-KS-05-03-28-20 (right distal part), DMR-KS-05-03-00-119 (right distal part), DMR-KS-05-03-19-2 (right distal part), and DMR-KS-05-08-16-1 (left proximal part); three left metatarsi-DMR-KS-05-03-25-8, DMR-KS-05-03-28-17, and DMR-KS-05-03-15-15.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Cranium and upper dentition: DMR-KS-05-04-20-4 is an incomplete cranium, lacking the whole anterior parts (nasal, jugal, palatine, and maxilla) (Fig. 19 A–C) (for measurements, see Appendix 4). This specimen is a juvenile individual according to the incompletely fused sutures. The basioccipital and basisphenoid are triangular in outline and have straight lateral edges (Fig. 19C), different from those of Axis, and as observed on the recent skull of Panolia eldii (e.g., MNHN-ZMO-1937-157, MNHN-ZMO-1944-307, MNHN-ZMO-2011-190, and NMW-2975). The foramina ovale of DMR-KS-05-04-20-4 are more circular and open more anteriorly than those of Axis . The right partial antler contains a half of the slender main beam, but lacks a brow tine entirely (Fig. 19A, B). The divergent angle between the main beam and the brow tine is of about 110°, similar to recent skulls of Panolia eldii (e.g., THNHM-M-125). The antler surface is smooth and the burr is poorly developed in relation to the ontogenetic stages. The preserved shed antler shows a typical character of Panolia eldii, whose main beams strongly project and curve laterally (Fig. 19A).</p><p>P2 exhibits a prominent medial crista which divides the fossette into two islands (Fig. 19D). The separated anterior fossette is larger than the posterior one. On the upper molars, the buccal styles, anterior cingula, and entostyles are distinct (for measurements, see Tab. 12). The entostyle is bifurcated (Fig. 19 E–H). The metaconule fold (spur) is poorly developed. The posterior lobe of the M3 is reduced in width (Fig. 19G, H). The buccal wall of the posterior lobe is oblique in occlusal view.</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition: Two mandibles (DMR-KS-05-03-27-2: Fig. 19J, K and DMR-KS-05-04-9-5: Fig. 19L, M) are nearly complete, preserving the bodies with cheek tooth rows (for measurements, see Appendix 5). The first specimen also preserves a partial ramus and is more complete than the second one in which the mandibular body is broken.</p><p>An isolated i1 is spatulate (Fig. 19I). Lower premolars show more complex patterns compared to Axis (e.g., the bifurcation of the metaconid on the p3, the irregular shape of the posterior valley, and the presence of more developed pre- and postprotoconulidcristids) (Fig. 19K, L). Lower molars display well-developed anterior cingulids and stylids (for measurements, see Tab. 12). The m3 is characterized by the presence of a posterior ectostylid (Fig. 19K). The shape of the posterior lobe of the m3 resembles that of Axis axis .</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial bones include a scapula (Fig. 20A, B), humeri (Fig. 20 C–E), radii, a metacarpus (Fig. 20 I–K), femora (Fig. 20 O–Q), and metatarsi (Fig. 20 L–N). They are almost complete. We identify these postcranial bones based on the correlation of size and proportion with the extant specimens of Panolia eldii (Tab. 13, and Appendices 1, 6-10, and 12).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>Several authors consider Eld’s deer as belonging to either the genus Cervus (e.g., Lekagul and McNeely 1988, Tougard 2001, Gruwier et al. 2015) or Rucervus (e.g., Grubb 2005). However, Groves and Grubb (2011) suggested that placement of the Eld’s deer in the genus Panolia is an acceptable alternative based on mtDNA analysis (Pitra et al. 2004).</p><p>The shed antler of the Eld’s deer, Panolia eldii, is characterized by bow- or lyre-like shapes, long, noticeable, and laterally bending-main beams with a distal portion curving medially, and small ornamented branches of brow tines. The cheek teeth of Panolia eldii differ from those of Axis axis in having a larger size, a more complex wear pattern of the mesolingual conids on the p3, more developed anterior cingulids on the lower molars, and a posterior ectostylid on the m3. The Khok Sung specimens assigned to Panolia eldii are similar in morphology to the extant specimens. As demonstrated by the body mass estimation (Tab. 14) and scatter diagrams (Figs 21 and 22), Panolia eldii from Khok Sung is also comparable in size to recent populations, to that from Thum Wiman Nakin, and to some fossil species (e.g., Cervus kendengensis from the Pleistocene of Bangle and Kali Gedeh in Java). However, we suggest that some isolated teeth of cervids from Thum Wiman Nakin (Tougard 1998) reveal an improper taxonomic identification. The P2 (TF 3371 and TF 4570), p2 (TF 3938, TF 3313, TF 3358, and TF 3983), p3 (TF 3373), and m2 (TF 4025), attributed to Panolia eldii, may belong to other cervids (possibly Rusa unicolor) due to their larger sizes. Our identification thus confirms the existence of Panolia eldii in Thailand during the late Middle Pleistocene.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/17791942D4CBAA268A952F0775E5615B	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
EE619B208E841F3AB28B38162FE94FAF.text	EE619B208E841F3AB28B38162FE94FAF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rusa unicolor (Kerr 1792) Kerr 1792	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Cervidae</p><p>Rusa unicolor (Kerr, 1792)</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Three right antlers-DMR-KS-05-03-20-11 (nearly complete specimen), DMR-KS-05-03-26-2 (fragment), and DMR-KS-05-03-28-23 (fragment); a right M1, DMR-KS-05-03-22-10; two left M2-DMR-KS-05-04-9-3 and DMR-KS-05-04-3-3; a left M3, DMR-KS-05-03-31-1; two right mandibles-DMR-KS-05-03-31-2 (with m2) and DMR-KS-05-03-13 (with p4-m3); two left mandibles-DMR-KS-05-03-00-101 (with p3-m3) and DMR-KS-05-03-27-4 (with m3); a right m1, DMR-KS-05-03-00-5; a left fragmentary humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-15-43 (distal part); three right fragmentary radii-DMR-KS-05-03-25-9 (proximal part), DMR-KS-05-03-19-14 (proximal part), and DMR-KS-05-03-26-19 (distal part); a left metacarpus, DMR-KS-05-03-17-26; six fragmentary femora-DMR-KS-05-03-19-7 (right proximal part), DMR-KS-05-03-12-2 (right proximal part), DMR-KS-05-04-11-2 (right distal part), DMR-KS-05-03-26-5 (left proximal part), DMR-KS-05-04-30-9 (left distal part), and DMR-KS-05-04-19-10 (left distal part); a right tibia, DMR-KS-05-03-28-16; a right metatarsus, DMR-KS-05-03-19-11</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Antlers: DMR-KS-05-03-20-11 is a nearly complete antler, slightly broken at the middle part of the main beam (Fig. 23A). The fragmentary antler DMR-KS-05-03-26-2 comprises a burr, a broken brow tine, and a half of the main beam (Fig. 23B). The specimen DMR-KS-05-03-28-23 preserves the broken brow tine and main beam (Fig. 23C). The antler surface is rough. The shed antlers are morphologically characterized by three main tines, a long and slender main beam, a forked construction at the tip, and a well-developed burr (Fig. 23 A–C). On the apical bifurcation, the postero-internal tine is much shorter than the antero-external one. The main beam and brow tine are also much more robust, compared to the extant males of Axis porcinus (e.g., the specimen MNHN-ZMO-1904-60 and NMW-2546). The divergent angle between the main beam and brow tine ranges from 50° to 90°. The shed antlers of Rusa unicolor are different from those of Axis axis in having slightly rougher surfaces, more divergent insertion relative to the frontal orientation, a shorter main beam, and a smaller angle between the main beam and the brow tine, and in lacking small-ornamented tines or knobs on the brow tine (Fig. 23 A–C). These characters match well the recent Rusa unicolor .</p><p>Upper dentition: upper molars are robust (Tab. 12) and show well-developed styles (particularly the mesostyle), anterior cingula, and entostyles (Fig. 23D, E). The entostyle is bifurcated, like in Panolia eldii, in relation to the moderately to strongly worn teeth. The fossettes are present at least in the middle stage of wear. The metaconule fold is poorly developed or sometimes absent. On the M3, the anterior lobe is wider than the posterior one (Fig. 23E).</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition: four mandibles are incomplete (for measurements, see Appendix 5). The specimens DMR-KS-05-03-13 (Fig. 23F, G) and DMR-KS-05-03-00-101 (Fig. 23H, I) preserve a partially broken mandibular body. The manidibles DMR-KS-05-03-31-2 and DMR-KS-05-03-27-4 are very fragmentary. All lower cheek teeth of Rusa unicolor are obviously larger than those of other Khok Sung cervids (Tab. 12). Lower molars display cervid-like patterns, such as well developed styles, anterior cingulids, and ectostylids (Fig. 23J, K). On the m3, the posterior lobe of the talonid in Rusa unicolor is more developed than those in Axis . Moreover, the posterior ectostylid is present (Fig. 23G, I, K), unlike in Axis .</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial elements include a humerus (Fig. 24 A–C), radii (Fig. 24 D–G), a metacarpus (Fig. 24 H–J), femora (Fig. 24 K–N), a tibia (Fig. 24 O–Q), and a metatarsus (Fig. 24 R–T). All radii and femora are fragmentary. We assign these postcranial bones to Rusa unicolor according to the sized and proportional correlation with the extant specimens (Tab. 13 and Appendices 1 and 7-12).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>According to Leslie (2011), we regard here Rusa as a separate genus within the family Cervidae . Four species are currently recognized: Rusa unicolor (sambar), Rusa marianna (Philippine deer), Rusa timorensis (rusa), and Rusa alfredi (Prince Alfred’s deer).</p><p>Antlers of Rusa unicolor are characterized by its typical three tines and forked beams at the tip, similar in shape to those of Axis porcinus but much more robust. The sambar deer shares a similar dental morphology with the Eld’s deer. But it differs from Panolia eldii as well as Axis axis in being larger-sized and in having more developed anterior cingulids on lower molars. The sambar deer is much larger than Axis axis (Figs 21 and 22). Based on the body mass estimated from the second molar sizes, Khok Sung large cervids fit well the size tendency of the modern populations of Rusa unicolor (Tab. 14). As demonstrated by the scatter diagrams (Figs 21 and 22), the recent sambar deer shows a wide range of size variation that sometimes overlaps with the Eld’s deer. The cheek teeth of Khok Sung Rusa unicolor conform to the size variability of their recent population. They are also comparable in size and morphology to the fossil sambar deer from Thum Prakai Phet (Filoux et al. 2015), Phnom Loang (Beden and Guérin 1973), and Ma U’Oi (Bacon et al. 2004) (Figs 21 and 22). As is the case for Panolia eldii, some cervid specimens described from Thum Wiman Nakin are improperly identified. For instance, the P2 (TF 3371 and TF 4570) probably do not belong to Rusa unicolor according to their smaller sizes. The taxonomic revision of fossil cervids from Thum Wiman Nakin would lead to the recognition of either higher or lower diversity of cervids in Southeast Asia during the Middle Pleistocene.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EE619B208E841F3AB28B38162FE94FAF	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
22AE61528678829FA6BA03890FFAEF8A.text	22AE61528678829FA6BA03890FFAEF8A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bos sauveli Urbain 1937	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Bovidae</p><p>Bos sauveli Urbain, 1937</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A left DP3, DMR-KS-05-03-29-8; a left P3, DMR-KS-05-04-01-4; a left fragmentary M1 or M2 (posterior portion), DMR-KS-05-03-23-2; a right M3, DMR-KS-05-03-29-6; a right mandible with m1-m3, DMR-KS-05-03-9-1; two left mandibles-DMR-KS-05-04-9-1 (with p2, p4, and m1-m3) and DMR-KS-05-04-29-1 (with m3); a left i2, DMR-KS-05-03-15-12; a right i3, DMR-KS-05-03-23-4; a right p2, DMR-KS-05-04-01-6; a right m1, DMR-KS-05-03-15-10; a right m2, DMR-KS-05-03-29-7; two m3-DMR-KS-05-04-28-4 (right broken posterior lobe) and DMR-KS-05-03-24-5 (left); a left humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-20-2(1).</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Upper dentition: DP3 (DMR-KS-05-03-29-8) is molariform and elongated, characterized by well-developed anterior and posterior cingula, buccal styles, and medial fossettes, a slightly-developed entostyle, and a reduction of the anterior lobe width and height compared to the posterior lobe (Fig. 25A). The P3 (DMR-KS-05-04-01-4) has distinct styles (particularly the metastyle), protocone, and hypocone and an irregular fossette. (Fig. 25B). Upper molars have a rectangular outline and distinct styles, entostyles, and single medial fossettes with wear (Fig. 25C, E) (for measurements, see Tab. 15). The infundibula are X- or metacentric chromosome-shaped on the moderately worn molars (Fig. 25C, E). The entostyles (column) of DMR-KS-05-03-23-2 (M1 or M2: Fig. 25C, D) and DMR-KS-05-03-29-6 (M3: Fig. 25E) are often bifurcated and lingually flat in occlusal view. A distinct longitudi nal groove runs along the lingual surface of the entostyle (Fig. 25D). The M3 is more rectangular in outline compared to other upper molars. The posterior lobe of the M3 is relatively reduced in width and the fossettes are large (Fig. 25E).</p><p>Mandible and lower dentition: two mandibles, DMR-KS-05-03-9-1 (Fig. 25H, I) and DMR-KS-05-04-9-1 (Fig. 25J, K), are almost complete (for measurements, see Appendix 13). All incisors and premolars dropped out of the first specimen. The second specimen lacks all incisors and the p3. Another fragmentary mandible DMR-KS-05-04-29-1 preserves only a posterior lobe of the m3.</p><p>The i2 (DMR-KS-05-03-22-15) and i3 (DMR-KS-05-03-23-4) are spatulate and small, compared to other species of Bos (for measurements, see Tab. 15). The two p2 (DMR-KS-05-04-9-1: Fig. 25H and DMR-KS-05-04-01-6: Fig. 25F) is small and shows a protruding preprotoconulidcristid and a fusion between the postentocristid and the posthypocristid. The p4 displays well-developed conids and cristids. The postprotocristid is large, compared to other Bos species. On the lower molars, the metastylid is poorly-developed, but becoming more prominent in m3 (Fig. 25H). The anterior and posterior fossettes is metacentric chromosome-shaped with wear (Fig. 25H, J). The posterior talonid of the m3 is well-developed (Fig. 25H, J). The posthypoconulidcristid protrudes posteriorly and sometimes bifurcates into two flanges, as observed on the specimen DMR-KS-05-04-9-1 (Fig. 25H). The entostylid slightly protrudes lingually in relation to heavy wear and the posterior ectostylid is usually absent.</p><p>Postcranial remains: a humerus, DMR-KS-05-03-20-2(1), preserves the shaft and distal part (Fig. L–N). We attribute this humerus to Bos sauveli according to the proportional correlation with the extant specimens (Tab. 13 and Appendix 7). This specimen is also smaller than that of extant Bos javanicus and Bos gaurus (Appendices 1 and 7).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>Southeast Asian large bovids are accurately identified by differences in cranial features (especially horn cores), although they show sexual and ontogenetic variation in morphology. Lacking the cranial remains, it is difficult to make a distinction within the species of Bos . Due to the lack of cranial remains of koupreys ( Bos sauveli) collected from Khok Sung, we identify these fossils on the basis of dental features.</p><p>Based on our comparisons with some extant specimens (MNHN-ZMO-1940-51 and MNHN-ZMO-10801), the cheek teeth of koupreys are similar to those of other species of Bos, characterized by having hypsodont crowns, well-developed styles and stylids, a horse shoe-shaped infundibulum (anterior and posterior fossettes), and bifurcated or trifurcated entostyles depending on the wear stage. Among Southeast Asian large bovids, it differs from Bos javanicus (banteng) and Bos gaurus (gaur) in having a more developed postprotocristid on the p3 and p4, a metacentric chromosome-shaped molar in relation to the middle wear stage, a single large medial fossette on the upper molars, a flat lingual surface of the entostyle on the moderately to heavily worn molars. The M1 and M3 of Bos sauveli are almost more square and rectangular in outline, respectively, compared to those of other Bos species. Bos sauveli is usually smaller than Bos gaurus and Bubalus arnee (wild water buffalo), but is often comparable in size to Bos javanicus (Figs 26 and 27, and for the average of large bovid body mass, see Tab. 14).</p><p>According to the molecular phylogenetic analyses, the kouprey may have been domesticated in Cambodia (Hassanin et al. 2006) and they are probably a feral animal derived from hybridization between Bos javanicus and Bos taurus indicus (zebu) (Galbreath et al. 2006). However, the latter statement is not recently supported by the molecular sequences available for koupreys, bantengs, and zebus (Hassanin and Ropiquet 2007). These authors indicated that the mitochondrial sequences of Cambodian bantengs are divergent from those of Javan bantengs, but similar to those of koupreys. They also proposed that the mitochondrial genome of koupreys seems to have been transferred by natural hybridization into the ancestor of Cambodian bantengs. The taxonomic status of koupreys is currently under discussion and additional molecular analyses on Southeast Asian bantengs need to be examined in the future. However, our taxonomic identification of Khok Sung bovids suggests an existence of the Pleistocene kouprey in Thailand because of its high similarities in dental features with the type specimen MNHN-ZMO-1940-51 and the specimen MNHN-ZMO-10801.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/22AE61528678829FA6BA03890FFAEF8A	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
7A6A19A87FEF8185A4D1E1970FC3C457.text	7A6A19A87FEF8185A4D1E1970FC3C457.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bos gaurus (Hamilton-Smith 1827) Hamilton-Smith 1827	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Bovidae</p><p>Bos gaurus (Hamilton-Smith, 1827)</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A left horn core, DMR-KS-05-03-26-22; a right DP2, DMR-KS-05-03-20-4; two right P2-DMR-KS-05-03-19-27 and DMR-KS-05-04-03-3; a right DP3, DMR-KS-05-03-20-3; a right DP4, DMR-KS-05-03-17-3; a right M1, DMR-KS-05-03-00-20; a right M3, DMR-KS-05-03-17-1; a right mandible with m1-m3, DMR-KS-05-03-00-1; a left mandible with p2-m3, DMR-KS-05-04-3-1; a left i1, DMR-KS-05-03-00-27; two left m2-DMR-KS-05-03-19-26 and DMR-KS-05-03-16-1; two humeri-DMR-KS-05-05-1-1 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-00-62 (left); a right metacarpus, DMR-KS-05-03-26-27; two left femora-DMR-KS-05-03-9-2 and DMR-KS-05-04-30-1 (proximal part).</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Horn core: a single horn core (DMR-KS-05-03-26-22) is small, curved upward (Fig. 28A, B) and slightly backward. The horn core base is oval in cross-section (Fig. 28A). A longitudinal ridge on the anterior surface of the horn core is present (Fig. 28B). This specimen belongs to a juvenile individual according to its very small size.</p><p>Upper dentition: DP2 (DMR-KS-05-03-20-4) is small and elongated, characterized by three main cones (anterior cone, paracone, and metacone) and a well-developed metastyle (Fig. 28C) (for measurements, see Tab. 15). The anterior and poste rior fossettes fuse together. Two P2 (DMR-KS-05-03-19-27; Fig. 28D and DMR-KS-05-04-03-3: Fig. 28E) have a well developed paracone rib close to the parastyle and a nearly flat lingual wall. The fossettes are separated into two islands (larger for the anterior one) due to the heavy wear stage (Fig. 28D). The P2 shows a nearly straight posterior wall and is wider than the DP2 (Fig. 28E). On the molarized DP3, the posterior lobe is broader than the anterior lobe (Fig. 28F). A small medial fossette is present. The entostyle is short and projects posteriorly. The molarized DP4 (DMR-KS-05-03-17-3) is slightly worn, characterized by a rectangular outline, well-developed buccal styles, an unfused entostyle, and two separated medial fossette (Fig. 28 G–H). The entostyle is bifurcated and situated between the protocone and hypocone (Fig. 28G). Two parallel longitudinal grooves are present along the lingual surface of the enstostyle, likely resulting in a trifurcated pattern in relation to the middle wear stage (Fig. 28H). The heavily worn M1 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-20) displays a subsquare outline and an unbifurcated entostyle positioned between the protocone and hypocone (Fig. 28I). The medial fossette is absent due to the heavy wear stage. The M3 (DMR-KS-05-03-17-1) exhibits well-developed buccal styles and large medial fossettes splitting into 2 islands with wear (Fig. 28J). The entostyle on the M3 is short, not bifurcated, and close to the hypocone.</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition: DMR-KS-05-04-3-1 is complete, posterior to the p2, with the exception of a small part of the angular region (Fig. 28K, L) (for measurements, see Appendix 13). Another mandible (DMR-KS-05-03-00-1) preserves only a portion of the ramus with the complete molar row (Fig. 28M and Appendix 13). The isolated i1 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-27) is heavily worn, spatulate, and robust. Lower premolars have well-developed main cuspids and cristids (Fig. 28K, M). On the p2, the protocone is the highest cuspid and the posterior fossette is present. The p3 is elongated as long as the p4. The premetacristid is poorly developed. The postprotocristid on the p3 is larger than that on the p4. On the p4, the postprotocristid is narrow and anteroposteriorly constricted. The metaconid is most developed, compared to Bos sauveli and Bos javanicus as well as Bubalus arnee . For all lower molars, the ectostylid is slightly developed and not bifurcated (Fig. 28K, M–N) (for measurements, see Tab. 15). In lingual view, the metastylid is absent at the medium wear stage (Fig. 28K, M). In occlusal view, the entostylid is straight and short. The buccal outline of the protoconid and hypoconid is U-shaped in relation to the strong wear (Fig. 28M). The posterior talonid on the m3 is well-developed. The posthypoconulidcristid protrudes posteriorly.</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial elements include humeri (Fig. 29 A–D), a metacarpus (Fig. 29 E–G), and femora (Fig. 29 H–J) (for measurements, see Appendix 1). The femur DMR-KS-05-04-30-1 lacks a distal portion. We assign these postcranial bones based on the proportional correlations with the recent specimens of Bos gaurus (Tab. 13 and Appendices 7 and 9-12).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>According to IUCN (2015), the wild forms of gaurs are considered as Bos gaurus, while their domestic forms are recognized as Bos frontalis (Gentry et al. 2004). We consider here the Pleistocene fossil gaurs as belonging to wild forms in terms of taxonomic nomenclature.</p><p>We assign the juvenile horn core (DMR-KS-05-03-26-22) to Bos gaurus because the horn cores of gaurs are different from all other Bos species. They grow outward and curve upward, similar to those of Bubalus arnee, but their apical portion curves inward and slightly forward (Lekagul and McNeely 1988).</p><p>Mandibles and isolated teeth of Bos gaurus are also observed. The cheek teeth of Bos gaurus are distinguished from Bos sauveli and Bos javanicus by having two separate fossettes on the P2, more developed metaconids and more anteroposteriorly constricted postprotocristids on the p3 and p4, and more robust cheek teeth (Figs 26 and 27, and Tab. 15). The entostyles are usually bifurcated or sometimes trifurcated on the slightly to moderately worn upper molars (our observations on the comparative material of recent Bos gaurus: e.g., ZSM-1972-5 and ZSM-1961-313), similar to those of Bos javanicus . But the entostyle is not bifurcated, when the molar is extremely worn, as seen on the specimen DMR-KS-05-03-00-20 (Fig. 28I). This character is therefore morphologically variable through wear. On the m3, the entostylid and posterior talonid in Bos gaurus is almost more developed than that in Bos javanicus . The angle between the posthypocristid and prehypoconulidcristid is slightly more divergent in Bos sauveli than in Bos gaurus . The size of Khok Sung Bos gaurus falls within the range of the recent population (Figs 26 and 27, and Tab. 14). We elucidate here the co-occurrence of two Bos species, Bos sauveli and Bos gaurus (larger), in Khok Sung.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7A6A19A87FEF8185A4D1E1970FC3C457	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
8559085F2BE0145B69B59FDA47F986E4.text	8559085F2BE0145B69B59FDA47F986E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bubalus arnee (Kerr 1792) Kerr 1792	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Bovidae</p><p>Bubalus arnee (Kerr, 1792)</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A nearly complete cranium associated with a right mandible, DMR-KS-05-03-20-1; a cranium with a right tooth row (P3-M3), DMR-KS-05-03-21-1; a partial cranium with two tooth rows (P3-M1), DMR-KS-05-03-16-3; a partial cranium with a right tooth row (P3-M3), DMR-KS-05-03-11-1; three horn cores-DMR-KS-05-03-16-2 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-31-6 (right), and DMR-KS-05-03-19-28 (left); a left P2, DMR-KS-05-03-18-14; a left DP3, DMR-KS-05-03-00-103; two right P3-DMR-KS-05-03-22-14 and DMR-KS-05-04-05-3; a right DP4, DMR-KS-05-04-29-8 (broken anterior lobe); two P4-DMR-KS-05-03-18-13 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-18-9 (left); four M1-DMR-KS-05-03-31-5 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-18-12 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-18-6 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-22-13 (left); five M2-DMR-KS-05-03-00-2 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-25-21 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-18-5 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-16-2(1) (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-18-7 (left); four M3-DMR-KS-05-03-00-7 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-22-12 (left), DMR-KS-05-03-14-1 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-18-10 (left); a right mandible with p2-m1, DMR-KS-05-03-20-2; three left mandibles-DMR-KS-05-03-10-3 (with p2-m3), DMR-KS-05-03-20-10 (with p2-m1), and DMR-KS-05-03-20-20 (with m1 and m2); a right i1, DMR-KS-05-03-18-8; a right i2, DMR-KS-05-03-22-15; a left i3, DMR-KS-05-03-00-106; a right i4, DMR-KS-05-03-16-3; a right p3, DMR-KS-05-03-14-4; a left dp4, DMR-KS-05-03-00-4; a right p4, DMR-KS-05-03-19-6; four m1-DMR-KS-05-03-25-3 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-18-18 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-00-105 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-00-3 (left); two m2-DMR-KS-05-03-27-12 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-25-2 (left); two m3-DMR-KS-05-03-18-11 and DMR-KS-05-04-29-2 (left posterior lobe); eleven thoracic vertebrae-DMR-KS-05-04-1-11 (T3), DMR-KS-05-04-1-26 (T4), DMR-KS-05-04-1-13 (T5), DMR-KS-05-04-1-14 (T6), DMR-KS-05-04-1-15 (T7), DMR-KS-05-04-1-16 (T8), DMR-KS-05-04-1-12 (T9), DMR-KS-05-04-1-17 (T10), DMR-KS-05-04-1-18 (T11), DMR-KS-05-04-1-19 (T12), and DMR-KS-05-04-1-20 (T13); four lumbar vertebrae-DMR-KS-05-04-1-24 (L1), DMR-KS-05-04-1-23 (L2), DMR-KS-05-04-1-22 (L3), and DMR-KS-05-04-1-21 (L4); two humeri-DMR-KS-05-03-31-1 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-31-8 (left); two scapulae-DMR-KS-05-03-26-2 (right) and DMR-KS-05-02-20-4 (left); three ulnae and radii-DMR-KS-05-03-00-61 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-31-2 (right) and DMR-KS-05-03-31-9 (left); a right metacarpus, DMR-KS-05-03-26-3(1); a pelvis, DMR-KS-05-04-1-25; two femora-DMR-KS-05-04-1-1 (right) and DMR-KS-05-04-1-2 (left); a right fragmentary femur, DMR-KS-05-03-20-8 (distal part); three tibiae-DMR-KS-05-4-1-11 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-1-3 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-20-9 (left); two fourth tarsal bones-DMR-KS-05-04-1-7 (right) and DMR-KS-05-04-1-5 (left); three metatarsi-DMR-KS-05-04-1-8 (right), DMR-KS-05-04-1-6 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-28-30 (left); a left astragalus, DMR-KS-05-04-1-4; a left phalanx I, DMR-KS-05-04-1-9; a left phalanx II, DMR-KS-05-04-1-10.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Crania and upper dentition: DMR-KS-05-03-20-1 is undeformed and nearly complete (for measurements, see Appendix 14). Only the right maxilla, squamosals, and basicranium are damaged (Fig. 30 A–C). The horn cores are broken at their middle portion. The cross-section of the horn core base is subtriangular and anteriorly flat (Fig. 30A). The frontals are narrow between the orbits and are flat or slightly convex at the region between horn core bases (Fig. 30A, C). The supraorbital foramina are large. The orbits face slightly forward (Fig. 30A, B), not laterally like Leptobos brevicornis and Bubalus teilhardi (Dong et al. 2014). The lateral margins of the premaxilla are concave (Fig. 30B).</p><p>DMR-KS-05-03-21-1, a juvenile cranium, is incomplete but slightly deformed. The posterior part of the skull is almost complete but the anterior part is broken (Fig. 30D, E). The cranium is likely elongated and laterally compressed (Fig. 30D). This specimen preserves two horn cores (broken at the right one) and a right tooth row with the M1, the P3 and P4 roots, and the unerupted M2 and M3 (Fig. 30E). The horn cores of DMR-KS-05-03-21-1 are slender, straight, and inclined upward and backward, and bend outward (Fig. 30D), similar to that of recent Bubalus arnee (e.g., MNHN-ZMO-1863-65). The horn cores are subtriangular in cross-section base, becoming subrounded toward the apex (Fig. 30D). The divergent angle between the horn cores is 105°. The frontals are short and narrow, forming an obtuse angle with the occipital plane. The parietals merged together. The occiput extends so far, posterior to the horn core bases. The basioccipital is laterally concave and triangular in outline (Fig. 30E).</p><p>DMR-KS-05-03-11-1 preserves the right zygomatic bone and the premaxilla and maxilla with a nearly complete tooth row (P3-M3) (Fig. 30F, G). Another specimen, DMR-KS-05-03-16-3, preserves the premaxilla and maxilla with P3-M1 (Fig. 30H, I). In dorsal and ventral views, the lateral margins of the premaxilla are concave, as expected for Bubalus (Fig. 30H).</p><p>Three isolated horn cores (DMR-KS-05-03-16-2: Fig. 30J, DMR-KS-05-03-31-6, and DMR-KS-05-03-19-28) are incomplete. The apical portion is broken away on each specimen. All horn cores are robust, long, and curved backward. Their anterior and dorsal surfaces are flat and their cross-sections are subtriangular at the base (Fig. 30J).</p><p>Upper cheek teeth of Bubalus arnee are more robust, compared to those of Bos . P2 (DMR-KS-05-03-18-14: Fig. 30K) is elongated. The parastyle on the P2 is less developed than that on the P3 and P4. The molarized DP3 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-103: Fig. 30L) is characterized by a well-developed buccal styles, anterior cingulum, entostyle, and spur, and a larger posterior lobe. The P3 is subtriangular in outline and is marked by a distinct parastyle, paracone rib, and metastyle and a U-shaped fossette (Fig. 30G, I). The parastyle of the P3 often curves posteriorly. The DP4 (DMR-KS-05-04-29-8: Fig. 30M) is also molarized with the broken protocone. This specimen has well-developed buccal styles and two separate medial fossettes. The entostyle curves posteriorly in occlusal view and is positioned more lingually than the protocone and hypocone. The P4 is similar in morphology to the P3, but is more anteroposteriorly compressed.</p><p>Upper molars display Bos -like patterns (e.g., the degree of the hypsodonty and selenodonty and the presence of distinct styles) but are more robust than most species of Bos (e.g., Bos sauveli and Bos javanicus) (Tab. 15). However, the mesostyles of upper molars of Bubalus arnee are more developed than those of Bos . The medial fossette between the anterior and posterior fossettes (infundibula) is well-developed, often separating into two or three islands with wear (Fig. 30G, I, N). The infundibula are U-shaped but sometimes become metacentric chromosome-shaped due to strong wear, like in Bos sauveli (Fig. 30G, N). In occlusal view, the entostyle is long and straight or curves posteriorly, depending on the stage of wear, but is never bifurcated (Fig. 30G, I, N). The small fossette is sometimes present within the entostyle in relation to strong wear (Fig. 30N).</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition: five mandibles: DMR-KS-05-03-20-1 (Fig. 31A, B), DMR-KS-05-03-10-3 (Fig. 31C, D), DMR-KS-05-03-20-2 (Fig. 31E, F), DMR-KS-05-03-20-10 (Fig. 31G, H), and DMR-KS-05-03-20-20 (Fig. 31I), are almost complete (for measurements, see Appendix 13). The first specimen is associated with the cranium. The right specimen DMR-KS-05-03-20-2 and the left specimen DMR-KS-05-03-20-20 belong to the same individual, bearing p2, dp3, dp4, and an unerupted m2. The left one is very fragmentary. Another mandible DMR-KS-05-03-20-10 is nearly complete, preserving the mandibular symphysis and bearing an unerupted m2, but lacking all incisors. All incisors drop out of the mandibles. The isolated lower incisors are spatulate in shape (Fig. 31 J–L). The i2 is similar in size to the i3 (Tab. 15).</p><p>All lower cheek teeth are robust. All lingual stylids are distinct. The p2 has a well-developed postentocristid and posthypocristid (Fig. 31B, D, F, H). The metaconid is positioned more lingually than all of lingual cristids. The dp3 is elongated (Fig. 31F, H). The postprotocristid is large and the metaconid is well-developed. A small anterior fossette is present with wear. The p3 displays a well-developed preprotoconulidcristid and a posteriorly bending metaconid (Fig. 31B, D). The isolated dp4 (DMR-KS-05-03-00-4: Fig. 31M) is trilobed and elongated with a well-developed stylids (anterior and posterior ectostylid, parastylid, metastylid, and entostylid. On the dp4, the buccal outline of the protoconulid, protoconid, and hypoconid is V-shaped in occlusal view (Fig. 31F, H, M). The anterior ectostylid curves slightly posteriorly in contrast to the posterior ectostylid that bends anteriorly (Fig. 31M). A large fossette is present between the medial and posterior valley in relation to middle wear stage (Fig. 31M). On the p4, the metaconid is most lingually positioned (Fig. 31B, D). The premetacristid is more developed than the postmetacristids. The postprotocristid is very anteroposteriorly constricted. The postentocristid fuses with the posthypocristid beyond the middle stage of wear.</p><p>Lower molars have well-developed stylids and conids. The metastylid is most developed on the unworn to slightly worn specimens (Fig. 31F, H, I, N and Tab. 15). The metastylid is located closely to the metaconid. In occlusal view, the anterior and posterior fossettes are U-shaped, similar to that of Bos . The entostylid is well-developed and sometimes curves anteriorly (Fig. 31F, I). On the m3, the posterior ectostylid is absent. The posthypoconulidcristid protrudes posteriorly slightly and is sometimes bifurcated (Fig. 31B, D). The back fossette is sometimes present with wear.</p><p>Postcranial remains: postcranial elements include scapulae (Fig. 32C), humeri (Fig. 32D), ulnae and radii (Fig. 32E), femora (Fig. 32H, L), tibiae (Fig. 32I, M), fourth tarsal bones (Fig. 32O), metacarpi (Fig. 32F), metatarsi (Fig. 32K, P), pha langes (Fig. 32Q, R), a pelvis (Fig. 32G), and thoracic and lumbar vertebrae (Fig. 32A, B). Most of postcranial remains belong to the same individual because they were found in connection. But some isolated specimens (scapula: DMR-KS-05-03-26-2, ulna and radius: DMR-KS-05-03-00-61, femur: DMR-KS-05-03-20-8, and metatarsus: DMR-KS-05-03-28-30) were found separately. The articulated skeletons show a typical character of Bubalus arnee whose postcranial bones are more massive and thicker than those of Bos (Fig. 32 and Appendix 1).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>According to IUCN (2015), the wild forms of water buffaloes are considered as Bubalus arnee, while their domestic forms are regarded as Bubalus bubalis (Gentry et al. 2004).</p><p>Although the cheek teeth of Bos and Bubalus are almost morphologically identical and often show highly variable occlusal morphologies in relation to the wear stages, they are distinguishable based on the dental morphology. Bacon et al. (2011) mentioned that Bubalus arnee is distinguished from Bos by several dental characters: more massive and voluminous cones, conids, and lingual stylids, more complex patterns of folded infundibula on the upper molars, U-shaped protoconids and hypoconids on the lower molars, and unbilobed entostyles and ectostylids. However, the latter two characters are highly variable with wear, as observed on many extant specimens of Bubalus arnee from MNHN, ZSM, and THNHM. Among the modern large bovids in Southeast Asia, some lower premolar (p3 and p4) and third molar features are more informative for the species identification than others (Thein 1974). Our comparisons suggest that the cheek teeth of Bubalus arnee differ from those of Bos in having more developed mesostyles, more complex shapes of the infundibulum at the similar stages of wear, less developed or smaller metaconids and narrower postprotocristids on the p3 and p4, a presence of the small fossette within the entostyle and an absence of the longitudinal groove on the lingual surface of the entostyle on upper molars, more distinct entostylids on the m3, and a presence of the back fossette on the m3. For the incisors, it is difficult to make a morphological distinction between Bubalus and Bos . However, we assign these isolated lower incisors to Bubalus arnee because they were found together with their molars at the same spot.</p><p>As demonstrated by the scatter diagrams (Figs 26 and 27), the cheek teeth of recent Bos and Bubalus populations are highly overlapping in size. The lower molar sizes of Bubalus arnee also overlap with some fossil species ( Bubalus teilhardi and Leptobos brevicornis). However, tooth dimensions are informative to make an ongoing distinction among the Khok Sung large bovids. The largest bovid in this locality is Bubalus arnee, followed by Bos gaurus and Bos sauveli, respectively, similar to the size tendency of their recent population (Tab. 14).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8559085F2BE0145B69B59FDA47F986E4	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
F5537D23FA5F828CFA42B52CB6287092.text	F5537D23FA5F828CFA42B52CB6287092.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Capricornis sumatraensis (Bechstein 1799) Bechstein 1799	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Bovidae</p><p>Capricornis sumatraensis (Bechstein, 1799)</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A left M2, DMR-KS-05-03-18-16; three m3-DMR-KS-05-04-05-4 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-27-5 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-28-10 (left posterior fragment).</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Isolated teeth are almost complete (for measurements, see Tab. 16), with the exception of the specimen DMR-KS-05-03-28-10 that preserves only a posterior lobe (Fig. 33G). Molars show typical features of Capricornis characterized by hyposodont crowns, smooth enamel, and distinct styles and stylids, and an absence of the ectostylids (Fig. 33). The parastyle, mesostyle, and metastyle on the M2 are perpendicular to the buccal wall (Fig. 33A). On the m3, the mesostylid is more developed than the other stylids and the posthypoconulidcristid protrudes posteriorly (Fig. 33C, E).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>We assign these isolated teeth from Khok Sung to Capricornis sumatraensis (Sumatran serow) because they are comparable in size and morphology to the extant specimens (Fig. 34). Among congeneric species, Capricornis sumatraensis is larger than Capricornis crispus as well as two goral species ( Naemorhedus goral and Naemorhedus caudatus), but is smaller than Capricornis milneedwardsi . In addition, it differs from Capricornis crispus in having more developed metastylid and entostylid and a presence of back fossettes on the slightly worn m3 and from Capricornis milneedwardsi in having less developed metastylid and posthypoconulidcristid on the m3.</p><p>Compared to other fossil records, Capricornis sumatraensis from Khok Sung is smaller than that from the Late Pleistocene of Lang Trang in Vietnam (de Vos and Long 1993), Tam Hang South in Laos (Bacon et al. 2011), Padang Cave in Sumatra (Hooijer 1958), and Xianrendong in China (Chen and Qi 1978, Chen and Li 1994) (Fig. 34) and from the late Middle Pleistocene of Guanyindong (Li and Wen 1986) in China. The Khok Sung material also matches morphologically that of the subspecies Capricornis sumatraensis kanjereus from the Middle Pleistocene of Yenchingkuo in China (Colbert and Hooijer 1953) and from the late Middle Pleistocene of Thum Wiman Nakin in Thailand (Tougard 1998). However, Capricornis sumatraensis from Khok Sung is larger than that from Thum Wiman Nakin and Naemorhedus from Thum Prakai Phet. It differs from Capricornis sumatraensis qinlingensis described from the middle Early Pleistocene of Gongwangling in northern China (Hu and Qi 1978, Zhu et al. 2015) in having its smaller size and less developed parastyle and metastyle on the M2. However, we do not assign the material to the subspecies level based on the few isolated teeth.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F5537D23FA5F828CFA42B52CB6287092	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
9ADDCB63888836BDFD05F0592AC7DD52.text	9ADDCB63888836BDFD05F0592AC7DD52.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crocodylus siamensis Schneider 1801	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Crocodylia Crocodylidae</p><p>Crocodylus cf. siamensis Schneider, 1801</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>A fragmentary cranium, DMR-KS-05-03-30-30; a dentary fragment with one tooth, DMR-KS-05-03-21-1; five isolated teeth-DMR-KS-05-03-00-19, DMR-KS-05-03-14-3, DMR-KS-05-03-22-22, DMR-KS-05-04-06-3, and DMR-KS-05-04-29-10; three osteoderms-DMR-KS-05-03-29-57, DMR-KS-05-03-29-58, and DMR-KS-05-03-27-25.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Skull and dentition: DMR-KS-05-03-30-30 is a slightly deformed skull preserving a nearly complete premaxilla, maxilla, nasal, and palatine process (Fig. 35A, B), and a partial palatine at the ventral part. The minimum length of the skull is 315 mm. The external naris is wide, dorsally directed, and presumably subcircular in outline (Fig. 35A). The nasal becomes narrower at the nearly premaxillary-maxillary suture and tapers into a point at the posterior rim of the naris. The premaxilla is broken anteriorly at the hole for the reception of the first dentary alveolus. The premaxilla contains at least four teeth on each side. The second one is the largest tooth in the premaxillary rows, regularly corresponding to the position of a large alveolar hole in dorsal view. A short premaxillary process extends to the second maxillary alveolus centrally or the first interalveolus laterally in ventral view (Fig. 35B). The premaxillary–maxillary suture is characterized by distinct notches. A maxilla comprises 14 alveoli, with the largest tooth crown (44.3 mm high) positioned at the fifth dentary alveolus. The width of the skull at the fifth maxillary tooth is 171.8 mm (the maximum width of the preserved skull). The width of the skull at the diastema between the last premaxillary tooth and the first maxillary tooth (the minimum width of the preserved skull) is 98.9 mm. Many small foramina in front of the alveoli are situated on both the premaxilla and the maxilla. Along the anterior to posterior maxillary rims, the tooth row is slightly convex until ending at the eighth or ninth alveolus. Teeth are characterized by their conical forms and striated surfaces. However, they are highly variable in shape and size, in relation to the position along the tooth row. The teeth of crocodyles are either slender and pointed or short and blunt (Fig. 35C) but much more massive than those of gharials. Asymmetrical surfaces of the tooth are divided by two prominent longitudinal ridges that are positioned anteriorly and posteriorly.</p><p>Osteoderms: two nearly complete specimens (Fig. 35 D–G) and one small fragment are characterized by rectangular shapes, wider than long (about 5-6 cm long and 7-8 cm width), and slightly flat to convex and irregular edges with small spiny outgrowths. A short median keel does not extend far anteriorly or posteriorly (Fig. 35D, F). The external surface has several large and rounded to elliptical pits on the dorsal part and fewer small foramina and striae with surrounding fibrous patterns on the ventral part (Fig. 35E, G). These specimens differ from Gavialis cf. bengawanicus (Martin et al. 2012) in the same locality by their more ornamented pits and more irregular surfaces on the dorsal surface.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>The specimen DMR-KS-05-03-30-30 is a crocodilian cranium with a possible maximum length up to 50 cm. All morphological characters of the Khok Sung crocodiles are congruent with the extant fresh water crocodile, Crocodylus siamensis, as well as with its fossils recovered from the Early and Middle Pleistocene of Java (Trinil H. K., Kedung Brubus, and Kedung Lumbu) (Delfino and de Vos 2010). However, the Khok Sung cranium preserves only the anterior midway portion of the skull and does not allow some morphological access to other important parts (e.g., lacrymals, jugals, and pterygoids). We thus attribute this material to Crocodylus cf. siamensis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9ADDCB63888836BDFD05F0592AC7DD52	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
C44E4F4DD98EA40F901F83319B1D7F47.text	C44E4F4DD98EA40F901F83319B1D7F47.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Python sp.	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Squamata Boidae</p><p>Python sp.</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Four trunk vertebrae-DMR-KS-05-03-00-21, DMR-KS-05-03-00-16 (two attached vertebrae), and DMR-KS-05-04-28-12.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>Vertebrae are almost complete and represent a large-sized snake (for measurements, see Tab. 17). In anterior view, the cotyle is suboval in outline with the dorsoventral compression (Fig. 35H). The ventro-lateral margins of the cotyle are nearly straight. The neural spine is well-developed and steep. The neural canal is narrow. The dorsal margin of the zygosphene is convex. The tubercle is located at the junction between the base of the zygoshene and the top of the neural canal. In posterior view, the neural arch is high and massive. The zygantra are wide and deep. In dorsal view, the median tubercle at the base of the zygosphene is distinct and the interzygapophyseal constriction is well-developed. In ventral view, the haemal keel is high (Fig. 35I) and the subcentral groove is poorly developed.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>These four vertebrae are attributed to the family Boidae because of the following characters: a short, wide, and massive vertebral body (i.e., the widths of the centra are greater than the lengths, sensu Delfino et al. (2004)), a small prezygapophyseal process, paradiapophyses weakly subdivided into para- and diapophyseal surfaces, and an absence of spine-like hypapophyses on mid- and posterior-trunk vertebrae (replaced by haemal keels) (Szyndlar and Böhme 1996, Rage 2001). Vertebrae of pythonines are commonly identified by many distinct characters: a straight and posteromedially angled zygapophyseal bridge, a triangular-shaped neural canal, a prominent zygosphenal tuberosity, a steep anterior border of the neural spine, a posterior border of the neural spine overhanging posteriorly, an absence of the paracotylar foramina, a haemal keel of mid- and posterior-trunk vertebrae delimited laterally by subcentral grooves that reach the cotylar rim, and a haemal keel projecting below the centrum (Scanlon and Markness 2001, Szyndlar and Rage 2003). The Khok Sung snake vertebrae are identified based on overall similarities with extant taxa (from the original description by Hoffstetter (1964)): a relatively elongated centrum compared to the neural arch width and the vertebral height, a longitudinal ridge along the haemal keel, and a thick zygosphenal base. The Khok Sung specimens are comparable in size to recent (e.g., Python molurus bivittatus: the specimen NMW 17117) and fossil (e.g., Python sp.: the specimens RMNH DUB 5794, DUB 6951, and DUB 6952 recovered from Trinil H. K., Java) python vertebrae. According to the fact that the species-level distinction based on the vertebral morphology is poorly known, we therefore assign these vertebrae to Python sp.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C44E4F4DD98EA40F901F83319B1D7F47	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
166F67A500E2CE9F21BD32BFF716CC62.text	166F67A500E2CE9F21BD32BFF716CC62.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Varanus sp.	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Squamata Varanidae</p><p>Varanus sp.</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Two trunk vertebrae-DMR-KS-05-03-08-36 and DMR-KS-05-03-29-36.</p><p>Material description.</p><p>The vertebra DMR-KS-05-03-08-36 is more complete than the specimen DMR-KS-05-03-29-36 (for measurements, see Tab. 17). The pre- and postzygapophyses are slightly broken at the second specimen. In both specimens, the neural spines are unfortunately broken away. In anterior view, the cotyle is oval in outline, dorsoventrally compressed, and ventrally oriented (Fig. 35J). The prezygapophyses lack a part of the prezygapophyseal process and are dorsally inclined about 45°. The neural canal is narrow. The neural arch lacks a part of the zygosphene. No paracotylar foramina are present. In posterior view, the condyle and the postzygapophyses show a mirrored morphology with the anterior part. No zygantrum is observed. In dorsal view, the prezygapophyseal facets are drop-shaped and project laterally. The interzygapophyseal constriction is also present. In ventral view, the synapophyses protrude laterally and the centrum is triangular in outline (Fig. 35K).</p><p>Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.</p><p>We assign these two vertebrae to the the family Varanidae due to the following morphological characters: a centrum tapering posteriorly, a precondylar constriction, a ventrally facing cotyle, and a large and flared condyle (Romer 1956, Averianov and Danilov 1997). The Khok Sung vertebrae match well the genus Varanus because the condyle is much wider than the posterior end of the centrum and none of the articulatory surface is visible in ventral view. They are also similar in morphology to Varanus according to an amphicoelous centrum, condyles facing very dorsally (anterodorsal direction), an oval-shaped cotyle, a short neural spine, and an absence of the zygosphenes and zygantra (Lee 2005). Varanus sp. is reported from the Middle Pleistocene of Phnom Loang (Beden and Guérin 1973). Two varanid species, Varanus cf. komodoensis (larger) and Varanus salvator, are described from the Middle Pleistocene of Trinil H. K. (Hocknull et al. 2009). The Khok Sung specimens are comparable in size to the recent (e.g., Varanus salvator: NMW 39446/1) and fossil (e.g., Varanus sp.: RMNH DUB 3 and RMNH DUB 5792 recovered in Trinil H. K., Java) specimens. Identifying these vertebrae more precisely to the species-level, more detailed morphological comparisons need to be made in the future.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/166F67A500E2CE9F21BD32BFF716CC62	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Suraprasit, Kantapon;Jaeger, Jean-Jacques;Chaimanee, Yaowalak;Chavasseau, Olivier;Yamee, Chotima;Tian, Pannipa;Panha, Somsak	Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa, Panha, Somsak (2016): The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications. ZooKeys 613: 1-157, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.613.8309
