Canis mosbachensis Soergel, 1925

Gasparik, Mihály & Pazonyi, Piroska, 2018, The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change, Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35, pp. 153-178 : 156-157

Canis mosbachensis Soergel, 1925

( Figs 2–5 )

Material – Layer 5: Deciduous upper incisivus fragment, vertebra caudalis; caninus fragment; 2 phalanges II (V.82.105); – Phalanx I; right M 1 fragment (V.82.95) ( Figs 2–3 ).

Layer 6: Right P 3 fragment (V.82.110).

Layer 12: Right P 4 fragment (V.84.16).

Layer 19: Phalanx II distal fragment (VER 2018.2617.).

Layer 21: Left MC II, os pisiforme; 2 MC IV fragments; metapodium distal fragment; right MC I; left MC I distal fragment; phalanx I; 2 phalanx I proximal fragments; 2 anterior phalanges II; 2 posterior phalanx II; posterior phalanx II proximal fragment; 2 anterior phalanges III; posterior phalanx III (VER 2018.2631.); – Right MT V; 2 metapodium fragments; right MC V and MC IV (in one piece); 2 phalanges I, 2 phalanx I fragments; 2 anterior phalanges II; posterior phalanx II, posterior phalanx II distal fragment; 4 phalanges III; left astragalus (VER 2018.2633.).

Layer 22b: Deciduous upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2626.).

Layer 34: Left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2659.) ( Fig. 4 ).

Layer 35: Deciduous caninus fragment (VER 2018.2650.); – Left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2651.).

Layer 41: Left M 1 (VER 2018.2683.) ( Fig. 5 ).

Remarks – The taxonomic status of the Canis mosbachensis is rather uncertain or more exactly it’s a subject of debate ( ROOK & TORRE 1996; CHERIN et al. 2014). Some authors think this species to be a synonym of C. arnensis or C. etruscus , in some papers we can find the expression “ Canis arnensis advanced form” for similar remains. We agree with those authors who think C. mosbachensis is a valid species name and this species is a transitional form between C. etruscus and C. lupus and a possible ancestor of the latter. One of the main characteristics of C. mosbachensis is its clearly smaller size than that of C. lupus but it is larger than that of C. arnensis . As the wolf remains from Somssich Hill 2 are rather scanty, the size was the most important differential characteristics in their identification. The measurements of M 1 and upper canine from Somssich Hill 2 fit well but these are a bit larger than C. mosbachensis from Pirro Nord in PETRUCCI et al. (2013). They are clearly smaller than those of the recent C. lupus and C. mosbachensis from the Middle Pleistocene localities of Vértesszőlős and Tarkő (both localities are in Hungary), but very similar to the C. mosbachensis remains from Gombaszög (early Middle Pleistocene, now in Slovakia as Gombasek). Length of M 1: 14.40 mm, width of M 1: 18.09 mm; Length of the crown of the upper canine (VER 2018.2651.): 18.94 mm.

Figures

Figs 2–16. Carnivora remains from Somssich Hill 2. – Figs 2–3. Canis mosbachensis Soergel right M 1 fragment (V.82.95). – Fig. 2. Lingual view. – Fig. 3. Occlusal view. – Fig. 4. Canis mosbachensis Soergel left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2659.), lingual view. – Fig. 5. Canis mosbachensis Soergel left M1 (VER 2018.2683.), occlusal view. – Fig. 6. Vulpes praecorsac Kormos right P (VER 3 2017.8222.), buccal view. – Fig. 7. Vulpes praecorsac Kormos left upper caninus (VER 2018.2666.),