Democricetodon decipiens ( Freudenthal & Daams, 1988 )

Crespo, Vicente D., Ríos, María, Marquina-Blasco, Rafael & Montoya, Plini, 2025, The Early Miocene muroids (Muroidea, Rodentia) of the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin (Spain): A thriving haven during a time of migration, Fossil Record 28 (1), pp. 187-218 : 187-218

Democricetodon decipiens ( Freudenthal & Daams, 1988)

Figs 5 , 6 , 7

Localities.

MCX 1, MCX 3, MTR 1, MTR 2, BC 1, FS 1, MAB 0 A, MAB 0 B, MAB 3, MAB 5, MAB 10, MAB 11, MAB 13, CBR 0 B, and CBR 1.

Material (number of remains).

Suppl. material 1; MCX 1 (2): 2 M 1; MCX 3 (1): 1 m 1; MTR 1 (2): 2 m 2; MTR 2 (11): 1 m 1, 3 m 2, 1 m 3, 2 M 1, 3 M 2, 1 M 3; BC 1 (2): 1 M 3, 1 m 1; MAB 0 A (3): 1 m 1, 1 m 2, 1 M 2; MAB 0 B (1): 1 m 3; FS 1 (3): 1 M 2, 1 M 3, 1 m 3; MAB 3 (85): 15 m 1, 10 m 2, 13 m 3, 15 M 1, 19 M 2, 13 M 3; MAB 5 (69): 15 m 1, 11 m 2, 4 m 3, 12 M 1, 14 M 2, 13 M 3; MAB 10 (1): 1 m 1; MAB 11 (31): 4 m 1, 7 m 2, 2 m 3, 6 M 1, 8 M 2, 4 M 3; MAB 13 (1): 1 M 3; CBR 0 B (4): 1 m 2, 3 M 2 (2); CBR 1: 1 m 1, 1 m 2.

Measurements.

Suppl. material 2.

Description.

(See Suppl. material 3).

m 1 ( MAB 3; Fig. 5 C – F ): the anteroconid is simple and it may be located close to the metaconid (8 out of 13) or slightly further away (5 out of 13), and they may be contacting (2 out of 13) or not (11 out of 13). The labial anterolophid is low and may be in contact with the base of the protoconid (11 out of 12) or not (1 out of 12). The anterolophulid may be short (10 out of 15), connected to the protoconid (3 out of 15), or absent (2 out of 15). The metalophulid may be anterior (13 out of 15) or transverse (2 out of 15). The hypolophulid is anterior. The mesolophid may be short (2 out of 15), medium (4 out of 15), long (7 out of 15), or absent (2 out of 15). The ectomesolophid is absent. The sinusid is directed anteriorly, and may be closed by a ridge (5 out of 12), not closed by a ridge (1 out of 12), or have neither ridge nor cusp (6 out of 12). The posterolophid may connect with the entoconid (5 out of 13) or not (8 out of 13).

Variability in other sites: In MCX 3 the metalophulid is absent and the hypolophulid is transverse. In MTR 2 (Fig. 5 A ), the hypolophulid is transverse. In BC 1 (Fig. 5 B ), the posterolophid has a posterior ridge; in MAB 5 (Fig. 5 G, H ), the anteroconid is typically closer to the protoconid. In one specimen, the anterolophulid contacts the metaconid. The metalophulid is anterior or absent, and the mesolophid is invariably present. In MAB 10 (Fig. 5 I ), the anterolophulid does not contact the metalophulid. In MAB 0 A, MAB 11 (Fig. 5 J ), and CBR 1, there are no significant morphological differences from the m 1 of MAB 3. Biometrically, the earliest material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin, categorised as belonging to the local L. florancei biozone, exhibits a slightly larger size relative to more recent material classified as the L. ellipticus biozone (Fig. 6 A , Suppl. material 4).

m 2 ( MAB 3; Fig. 5 O – R ): the labial anterolophid contacts the anterolabial edge of the protoconid. The lingual anterolophid may be weak and fused to the metaconid (7 out of 10) or absent (3 out of 10). The metalophulid and hypolophulid are anterior. The mesolophid may be short (7 out of 9) or medium (2 out of 9) in length. The ectomesolophid is absent. The sinusid is directed anteriorly. The labial mesocingulum may be a ridge (5 out of 7), cusp-shaped (1 out of 7), or neither cusp-shaped nor ridge (1 out of 7). The posterolophid may be either connected to the entoconid (5 out of 8) or not (3 out of 8). The posterolophid has a posterior ridge.

Variability in other sites: In MTR 2 (Fig. 5 L – N ), there is one specimen with an incipient ectomesolophid. In MAB 5 (Fig. 5 S ), the labial anterolophid may or may not contact the labial mesocingulid around the protoconid, in another the lingual anterolophid is long, in another the sinusid is perpendicular. Finally, two specimens have no posterior crest of the posterolophid. In MAB 11 (Fig. 5 T, U ), there is one specimen in which the labial anterolophid contacts the mesocingulum. There are no significant morphological differences in MTR 1, MAB 0 A, CBR 1, and CBR 0 B (Fig. 5 V ). Biometrically, the older material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin, belonging to the local L. florancei biozone, is similar to the more modern material belonging to the L. ellipticus biozone (Fig. 6 B , Suppl. material 4).

m 3 ( MAB 3; Fig. 5 Z – AC): the labial anterolophid may connect to the antero-labial edge of the protoconid (10 out of 11) or connect to the labial mesocingulum (1 out of 11). The lingual anterolophid may be medium (1 out of 11), short (6 out of 11), or incipient (4 out of 11). The mesolophid is mostly absent, with only one specimen showing an incipient one. The metaconid and posterolophid are connected. The mesosinusid is occluded by a ridge (6 out of 10) or opens to the labial side unobstructed (4 out of 10).

Variability in other sites: In MTR 2 (Fig. 5 W ), the mesolophid is double, with the anterior one being incipient. In MAB 0 B (Fig. 5 X ), the mesolophid is incipient, with the posterior part of the tooth narrower than in other sites. In FS 1 (Fig. 5 Y ), there is an incipient mesolophid, and the sinusid has a cusp on the labial edge. In MAB 5 (Fig. 5 AD – AE), the labial anterolophid may be short or absent as well as long, the lingual anterolophid may be long, and the metaconid and posterolophid are not connected in two specimens. In MAB 11 (Fig. 5 AF), there is one specimen with a strong lingual anterolophid, and the mesosinusid has a cusp on the labial margin. A biometric analysis reveals a decrease in size of the specimens over time in the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin (Fig. 6 C , Suppl. material 4).

M 1 ( MAB 3; Fig. 7 C – F ): The anterocone may be simple (13 out of 14) or shallowly divided (1 out of 14), with a platform on the anterior side. The labial part of the anterocone may be larger than the lingual part (12 out of 13) or they are of similar size (1 out of 13). The labial anteroloph may connect to the paracone (12 out of 13), but in one specimen, the labial anteroloph runs from the anterocone to the mesosinus. The lingual anteroloph may connect with the protocone (7 out of 13) or not (6 out of 13). The anteroloph connects the lingual part of the anterocone with the protocone. The labial ridge of the anterolophule may be incipient (4 out of 15) or absent (11 out of 15). The protoloph may be double (1 out of 14), almost double with incipient or short anterior protoloph (3 out of 14), or posterior, connecting with the longitudinal ridge near the protocone (10 out of 14). The metaloph may connect with the posteroloph (11 out of 13) or the hypocone (2 out of 13). The mesoloph may be short (3 out of 13), medium (3 out of 13), or long (7 out of 13). The mesostyle may be present (6 out of 9) or not present (3 out of 9). The ectoloph may be incipient (6 out of 13) or absent (7 out of 13). The metacone ridge is absent. The entostyle may take the form of a cusp (3 out of 11) or a cingulum (8 out of 11). The posterosinus may be small (4 out of 9), medium (1 out of 9), long (2 out of 9), or absent (2 out of 9). The posteroloph may be connected with the metacone (6 out of 9) or not (3 out of 9).

Variability in other sites: In MCX 1 (Fig. 7 A ), the metalophule is absent. In MTR 2 (Fig. 7 B ), a ridge may be present in front of the anterocone. In MAB 5 (Fig. 7 G ), there is a decrease in the number of individuals where the contact between the lingual anteroloph and protocone is present, and there is one specimen with a short labial crest of the anteroloph. The ectoloph is less common; there is one M 1 with a metacone ridge, and the posterosinus is smaller. In MAB 11 (Fig. 7 H – J ), two specimens were observed with a ridge in front of the anterocone, the lingual anteroloph consistently contacts the protocone, and the labial ridge of the anteroloph may be double (2 out 6), with the anterior one developed and the posterior one incipient (2 out 6) or absent (2 out 6). There are two specimens with a double protolophule. Two specimens exhibit a double metalophule, one of these with the formation of a double mesoloph, and the other one surrounding the mesoloph. In the latter, the surrounding mesoloph is longer. The ridge of the metacone is present in two specimens, and the posterosinus is smaller. Biometrically, there is a slight tendency for specimens to become larger over time (Fig. 6 D , Suppl. material 4).

M 2 ( MAB 3; Fig. 7 M – P ): the lingual anteroloph may be of three distinct lengths: it may be long and reach the antero-lingual border of the protocone (9 out of 16), of medium length (1 out of 16), or short (9 out of 16). The labial anteroloph may either be long and connect to the paracone (15 out of 17) or be disconnected (2 out of 17). The protolophule may be double (7 out of 17), and there are two protolophule, but the posterior one is incomplete (9 out of 17) or simple and connected to the antero-labial part of the protocone (1 out of 17). The metalophule may be anterior (9 out of 18), posterior (2 out of 18), or there are two metalophules, but the anterior one is incomplete (1 out of 18), double (1 out of 18), or disconnected from the metaconule (1 out of 18). The mesoloph may be long, contacting the labial border (3 out of 18), long (12 out of 18), or medium (3 out of 18). The ectoloph may be present (5 out of 16) or absent (11 out of 16). The metaconal ridge may be present (2 out of 17) or not (15 out of 17). The lingual mesocingulum may close the sinus (10 out of 15) or not (5 out of 15). The mesostyle is present in 9 of 16 specimens. The sinus is transverse. The posteroloph may either connect to the metacone (15 out of 17) or not (2 out of 17).

Variability in other sites: In MTR 2 (Fig. 7 K, L ), the sinus is posterior in one specimen. In MAB 5 (Fig. 7 Q ), the lingual anteroloph is shorter, and the metalophule may be transverse. MAB 11 (Fig. 7 R – T ) has one specimen with a posterior metalophule. No significant morphological differences were observed in MAB 0 A, CBR 0 B, and FS 1. Biometrically, the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin sites were found to be similar, except for MAB 11, where they were generally narrower (Fig. 6 E , Suppl. material 4).

M 3 ( MAB 3; Fig. 7 W – Z ): The labial anteroloph may reach the antero-labial side of the paracone (6 out of 12), or not (6 out of 12), it may be long (7 out of 11) or of medium length (4 out of 11). The lingual anteroloph reaches the protocone base; it may be long (2 out of 12), medium in length (5 out of 12), short (4 out of 12), or platform-shaped (1 out of 12). The hypocone may be either large (3 out of 12) or small (9 out of 12). The metacone’s position relative to the tooth’s ridge is another distinguishing factor: it may be incorporated within the ridge surrounding the tooth (8 out of 10) or not (2 out of 10). The metalophule is connected to the anterior ridge of the hypocone (7 out of 11), does not reach the metacone (1 out of 11), is connected to the neo-entoloph (2 out of 11), or connects to the anterior ridge of the hypocone and the axioloph (1 out of 11). The mesoloph may be long (1 out of 13), short (7 out of 13), incipient (1 out of 12), or absent (2 out of 12). The axioloph may be long (3 out of 12), long with contact to the paracone / protolophule (3 out of 12), short (3 out of 12), incipient (1 out of 12), or absent (2 out of 12). The sinus may be relatively long (3 out of 12), medium (4 out of 12), or short (5 out of 12). The mesosinus may be wide (4 out of 12) or narrow (8 out of 12).

Variability in other sites: The mesoloph contacts the paracone in MTR 2 (Fig. 7 U ). In MAB 5 (Fig. 7 AA – AC), the hypocone may be absent, and the mesoloph is more often absent. In MAB 11 (Fig. 7 AD), there is one specimen without a hypocone, and the mesoloph is shorter. No significant morphological differences were observed in BC 1 (Fig. 7 V ), MAB 13, and FS 1. A biometric analysis reveals that the different sites in the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin are morphologically similar (Fig. 6 F , Suppl. material 4).

Remarks.

The taxonomic status of the genus Democricetodon has been the subject of extensive debate in the literature ( Kälin 1999; van der Meulen et al. 2003; Casanovas-Vilar 2007; Jovells-Vaquè and Casanovas-Vilar 2018 a). This debate has encompassed a range of perspectives, including the proposal of the existence of multiple genera, such as Democricetodon , Fahlbuschia, Pseudofahlbuschia , and Renzimys ( Freudenthal and Daams 1988; Freudenthal 2006; Ruiz-Sánchez et al. 2013). Conversely, alternative perspectives advocate for the exclusive consideration of Democricetodon and Fahlbuschia as synonyms ( Aguilar 1981; Aguilar et al. 2010 a). A third viewpoint suggests the avoidance of such deliberations ( Murelaga et al. 2008; de Bruijn 2010; Prieto et al. 2010, among others). However, some scholars have proposed that all the aforementioned genera be subsumed under the genus Democricetodon ( van der Meulen et al. 2003; Álvarez-Sierra et al. 2006; Fejfar et al. 2011; Casanovas-Vilar et al. 2016; García-Paredes et al. 2016; among others). The latter hypothesis is the one that is more widely accepted, and, as a consequence, will be followed in this publication, as it is not a topic of discussion.

The provenance of the genus under consideration may be located in Anatolia, with the first records in Turkey immediately following the MN 1. In contrast, the earliest evidence of the genus in China and Europe is not until MN 3 / 4 ( Fejfar et al. 2011). Alternatively, the genus may have originated in Central Asia ( Maridet et al. 2011; Flynn and Wessels 2013) and arrived in Europe at the end of MN 3 ( van der Meulen et al. 2012; among others).

This genus is clearly distinguishable from the species of muroids present in the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin, which are assigned to Megacricetodon and Eumyarion , by virtue of its intermediate size and more rounded teeth. Furthermore, Democricetodon differs from Megacricetodon in having an undivided anterocone of M 1 and a generally more complex tooth pattern. Compared to Eumyarion , it exhibits a more simplified and advanced pattern ( Fejfar 1999). A further distinction is the development of the cusps of the labial side of the upper molars and the lingual part of the lower molars, which are higher than those of the other region (Figs 2 J , 5 K ). In the remaining genera, there is typically less variation in the height of the cusps.

The material under discussion is compared with that described by Freudenthal and Daams (1988), van der Meulen et al. (2003), Freudenthal (2006), and Jovells-Vaquè and Casanovas-Vilar (2021). In addition, a comparison is made with the measurements of Democricetodon franconicus Fahlbusch, 1966 by Fahlbusch (1966).

In the M 1 from the localities of the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin, the anterocones are simple, as in the species D. hispanicus , D. decipiens , Democricetodon moralesi van der Meulen et al., 2003 , Democricetodon sacedonensis Freudenthal, 2006 , and D. franconicus . About the protolophid, while this character is predominantly double in D. hispanicus and the older populations of D. franconicus , it is less represented (“ morphotype double ”) in D. moralesi and D. sacedonensis , the percentages of representation or morphotypes in the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin are very different in D. moralesi and D. sacedonensis , similar to those described for D. decipiens by van der Meulen et al. (2003) for the Calatayud-Montalbán and Buñol basins. The length of the mesoloph is very similar to that described for D. decipiens . It differs from that of D. hispanicus , D. sacedonensis , and D. franconicus , where it is usually medium-long, and also from that of D. moralesi , which is shorter. With regard to size (see Fig. 6 ), the material studied is generally larger than D. hispanicus from Villafeliche 2 A, smaller than D. moralesi from La Col D, slightly smaller than D. sacedonensis from Córcoles, and very similar to those of D. decipiens from Buñol and D. franconicus from Erkertshofen. About the L / W index of M 1, the studied material is within the range of variability observed in each of the aforementioned species (Table 1 ).

In the M 2, the mesolophs of the material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin are of a medium-long length, as observed in D. franconicus , D. hispanicus , and D. decipiens . In this regard, the former exhibits a longer length than that observed in D. moralesi and D. sacedonensis . The ectoloph is absent in D. hispanicus and is very poorly represented in D. franconicus , D. decipiens , and D. moralesi , as observed in the localities studied. In the material under consideration, protolophules are predominantly double and metalophules are primarily anterior, as seen in D. decipiens , D. franconicus , and D. sacedonensis . The size of the material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin is generally larger than that of D. hispanicus from Villafeliche 2 A, smaller than that of D. moralesi from La Col D, and similar to that of D. decipiens from Buñol, D. franconicus from Erkertshofen, and D. sacedonensis from Córcoles.

The M 3 from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin is comparable in size to D. hispanicus , D. franconicus , and D. decipiens , with a narrower width than D. sacedonensis and a smaller overall size than D. moralesi .

For the m 1, while in D. hispanicus the anteroconid-metaconid contact is invariably present, in D. decipiens it is present in approximately half of the examined remains. At the same time, in D. franconicus it is highly variable. In D. moralesi and D. sacedonensis , the contact is present in only a few specimens. In the material studied, something similar to D. decipiens occurs, tending to have a higher percentage of connections in the localities belonging to the L. florancei local biozone. However, there are only a few specimens in these sites. On the other hand, in the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin, the metalophulid is anterior, rarely transverse or absent, whereas in D. franconicus , the metalophulid is usually transverse, in D. sacedonensis transverse or anterior, and variable in the rest. The mesolophid of the material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin is typically long, as in D. hispanicus , and shorter in D. decipiens , D. franconicus , D. sacedonensis , and D. moralesi . The remaining morphologies of m 1 are analogous to those previously documented for D. hispanicus , D. franconicus , D. sacedonensis , D. decipiens , and D. moralesi . With regard to size, the material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin is typically larger than D. hispanicus from Villafeliche 2 A, smaller than D. moralesi from La Col D, and of the same size as D. decipiens from Buñol, D. sacedonensis from Córcoles, and D. franconicus from Erkertshofen. The L / W index indicates that the studied material falls within the variability of one of the described species (Table 1 ).

The mesolophid m 2 from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin material is characterised by either a short or, on rare occasions, a long form, with a length comparable to that of the species D. franconicus , D. hispanicus , D. decipiens , and D. moralesi , and shorter than that of D. sacedonensis . The size of the m 2 from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin is typically larger than those of D. hispanicus from Villafeliche 2 A, smaller than those of D. moralesi from La Col D, and D. sacedonensis from Córcoles, and very similar to those of D. decipiens from Buñol and D. franconicus from Erkertshofen.

The m 3 from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin exhibits mesolophids in the local L. florancei biozone localities, although the number of identified remains of this element is limited. Such occurrences are absent in D. sacedonensis and observed only infrequently in D. hispanicus and D. decipiens . The size of the m 3 in this study is generally larger than that of D. hispanicus from Villafeliche 2 A, smaller than that of D. moralesi from La Col D, not as wide as that of D. sacedonensis from Córcoles, and very similar in size to that of D. decipiens from Buñol and D. franconicus from Erkertshofen.

The material under study exhibits notable disparities compared with other European species of the genus Democricetodon of the same age. It is distinguished from Democricetodon anatolicus Theocharopoulos, 2000 by its larger size and more robust anteroconid ( Theocharopoulos 2000); and from Democricetodon doukasi Theocharopoulos, 2000 by its larger size, less developed M 1 -2 ectoloph of the M 1 -2, and longer mesolophids ( Theocharopoulos 2000); from Democricetodon affinis ( Schaub, 1925) is distinguished for being smaller, having shorter mesolophs, longer mesolophids and the anterocone exhibiting a slight division ( Maridet 2003); from Democricetodon brevis ( Schaub, 1925) from MN 6, of which there is a citation in MN 4 from Port la Nouvelle ( Aguilar et al. 1999) for having a less divided anterocone and shorter mesoloph / phids ( Maridet 2003); from Democricetodon gracilis ( Fahlbusch 1964) for having shorter mesolophs and larger size ( Maridet 2003); and from Democricetodon mutilus ( Fahlbusch, 1964) because the protolophule of M 1 is usually double or nearly double, the mesolophule is shorter, the lingual valleys of m 1 and 2 are not as anterior, and m 3 usually has an entoconid and is smaller ( Maridet 2003); from Democricetodon gaillardi ( Schaub, 1925) due to the smaller size, the shorter mesoloph / ids, the less elongated m 1, and because the anteroconid is weaker ( Maridet, 2003); from Democricetodon freudenthali ( Antunes and Mein 1981) because of the smaller size and the longer mesolophs ( Antunes and Mein 1981); from Democricetodon romieviensis ( Freudenthal, 1963) for being larger, having a less developed double protolophule of M 1 and metalophule of M 2, and for having shorter mesoloph / ids ( Daams and Freudenthal 1974).

Compared with all previously documented Democricetodon species, it can be concluded that the Democricetodon material from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin localities can be assigned to D. decipiens . Its morphology and size fall within the range of intrapopulation variability, and it exhibits novel morphological features not observed in any other species of the genus, including the mesolophs and the double labial ridges of the anteroloph of MAB 11.

Figures

Figure 2. Lower teeth of Megacricetodon primitivus from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin. A. Left mandible + m 2 + m 3 (MCX 3-33); B. Right m 1 (MCX 3-73); C. Right m 1 (MTR 2-72); D. Left m 1 (BC 1-55); E. Right m 1 (MAB 0 B- 10); F. Right m 1 (MAB 5-9); G. Right m 1 (MAB 5-61); H. Right m 1 (MAB 5-499); I. Left m 1 (MAB 5-798); J. Right m 1, labial view (MCX 3-65); K. Right m 2 (MCX 3-78); L. Left m 2 (BC 1-70); M. Left m 2 (MAB 3-170); N. Right m 2 (MAB 3-171); O. Right m 2 (MAB 3-172); P. Left m 2 (MAB 3-173); Q. Right m 2 (MAB 5-540); R. Right m 2 (CBR 0 B- 13); S. Left m 3 (MCX 3-87); T. Right m 3 (BC 1-71); U. Left m 3 (MAB 2-2); V. Right m 3 (MAB 3-6); W. Left m 3 (MAB 3-209); X. Left m 3 (MAB 3-213); Y. Right m 3 (MAB 3-214); Z. Right m 3 (MAB 3-219); AA. Right m 3 (MAB 5-512); AB. Right m 3 (MAB 5-803). Scale bar: 1 mm.

Figure 5. Lower teeth of Democricetodon decipiens from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin. A. Right m 1 (MTR 2-80); B. Left m 1 (BC 1-57); C. Left m 1 (MAB 3-152); D. Left m 1 (MAB 3-154); E. Right m 1 (MAB 3-156); F. Right m 1 (MAB 3-164); G. Right m 1 (MAB 5-188); H. Left m 1 (MAB 5-530); I. Left m 1 (MAB 10-1); J. Left m 1 (MAB 11-39); K. Left m 1, labial view (MAB 3-157); L. Left m 2 (MTR 2-3); M. Left m 2 (MTR 2-93); N. Right m 2 (MTR 2-94); O. Left m 2 (MAB 3-191); P. Left m 2 (MAB 3-195); Q. Right m 2 (MAB 3-196); R. Right m 2 (MAB 3-201); S. Right m 2 (MAB 5-197); T. Right m 2 (MAB 11-2); U. Left m 2 (MAB 11-45); V. Left m 2 (CBR 0 B- 1); W. Right m 3 (MTR 2-98); X. Right m 3 (MAB 0 B- 15); Y. Left m 3 (FS 1-31); Z. Left m 3 (MAB 3-224); AA. Right m 3 (MAB 3-228); AB. Left m 3 (MAB 3-231); AC. Right m 3 (MAB 3-233); AD. Left m 3 (MAB 5-544); AE. Right m 3 (MAB 5-545); AF. Right m 3 (MAB 11-53). Scale bar: 1 mm.

Figure 6. Comparison of length and width measurements (in mm) of Democricetodon decipiens from Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin. D. hispanicus from Villafeliche 2 A (type locality (t. l. )); D. decipiens from Buñol (t. l.); D. moralesi from La Col (l. t.); D. franconicus from Erkertshofen (l. t.); D. sacedonensis from Córcoles; and the material from Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin (Fahlbusch 1966, van der Meulen et al. 2003, Freudenthal 2006, this publication).

Figure 7. Upper teeth of Democricetodon decipiens from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin. A. Right M 1 (MCX 1-1); B. Left M 1 (MTR 2-56); C. Left M 1 (MAB 3-70); D. Right M 1 (MAB 3-74); E. Right M 1 (MAB 3-77); F. Right M 1 (MAB 3-78); G. Right M 1 (MAB 5-516); H. Right M 1 (MAB 11-18); I. Right M 1 (MAB 11-19); J. Left M 1 (MAB 11-20); K. Right M 2 (MTR 2-62); L. Left M 2 (MTR 2-63); M. Left M 2 (MAB 3-96); N. Left M 2 (MAB 3-105); O. Left M 2 (MAB 3-110); P. Left M 2 (MAB 3-194); Q. Left M 2 (MAB 5-520); R. Left M 2 (MAB 11-3); S. Right M 2 (MAB 11-25); T. Right M 2 (MAB 11-28); U. Right M 3 (MTR 2-69); V. Left M 3 (BC 1-51); W. Left M 3 (MAB 3-124); X. Left M 3 (MAB 3-125); Y. Left M 3 (MAB 3-127); Z. Right M 3 (MAB 3-128); AA. Left M 3 (MAB 5-227); AB. Right M 3 (MAB 5-228); AC. Left M 3 (MAB 5-229); AD. Left M 3 (MAB 11-37). Scale bar: 1 mm.