1975
DOI: 10.3406/mhnly.1975.1018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Etude de Panthera (Leo) spelaea (Goldfuss) nov. sub sp. (Mammalia, Carnivora, Felidae) du gisement pléistocène moyen des Abîmes de la Fage à Noailles (Corrèze)

Abstract: Des dents isolées, trois fragments de mandibule et quelques os post-crâniens de Panthera (Leo) spelaea recueillis dans le gisement des Abîmes de la Fage sont étudiés et comparés avec les éléments homologues du lion, du tigre et de P. spelaea provenant d'autres gisements français. En raison des différences de proportions entre les dents jugales inférieures, l'auteur propose ici de séparer sub-spécifiquement la forme reconnue dans les gisements français du type plus oriental du gisement de Gailenreuth.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In 1968, a discussion between the comparison of lion remains from the German/European "Pleistocene" and modern African lions resulted in the determination that the "Pleistocene" forms (it was generalized) must have been slightly larger (1/4) than modern ones [72], which is the truth only for the Middle Pleistocene (Saalian glacial) P. leo fossilis subspecies, indeed. In 1957, Late Pleistocene lions were then attributed to the modern lion subspecies, as P. leo spelaea, osteometrically based on new material from France [73]. In 1983, fishing boats recovered many Pleistocene mammal bones, including lion remains, on the seafloor of the North Sea [27].…”
Section: Cub Early Adult Sibblingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 1968, a discussion between the comparison of lion remains from the German/European "Pleistocene" and modern African lions resulted in the determination that the "Pleistocene" forms (it was generalized) must have been slightly larger (1/4) than modern ones [72], which is the truth only for the Middle Pleistocene (Saalian glacial) P. leo fossilis subspecies, indeed. In 1957, Late Pleistocene lions were then attributed to the modern lion subspecies, as P. leo spelaea, osteometrically based on new material from France [73]. In 1983, fishing boats recovered many Pleistocene mammal bones, including lion remains, on the seafloor of the North Sea [27].…”
Section: Cub Early Adult Sibblingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Late Middle Pleistocene (MIS 8-6; 300-130 ka) P. spelaea: Wierzchowska (Marciszak et al 2019), Verzé (Bonifay 1971;Testu 2006), Igue-de-Rameaux (= P. l. intermedia, Argant and Brugal 2017), Paks (Hankó 2007), Abimes de la Fage (Ballesio 1975), Azé I-3 (Argant 1991), Solymar (Hankó 2007), Lherm (Filhol and Filhol 1871;Testu 2006), Romain-la-Roche (Argant 2010;Guérin et al 2010), Santenay (Argant 1991).…”
Section: Late Middle Pleistocenementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, the taxonomy of the cave lion lineage still generates debate in the scientific community (Sabol 2011;Marciszak et al 2014). According to some authors, skull similarities with modern lions indicate that the Pleistocene forms are a large extinct subspecies of P. leo (Ballesio 1975(Ballesio , 1980Turner 1984). In contrast, others support the existence of two valid chronospecies: Panthera fossilis (von Reichenau, 1906) and Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810) (Sotnikova and Nikolskiy 2006;Sabol 2014;Barnett et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to the original measurements, we used the data published by Terzea (1965), Samson and Kovacs (1967), Dietrich (1968), Hemmer and Schütt (1970), Vereshchagin (1971), Altuna (1972Altuna ( , 1981, Hemmer (1974Hemmer ( , 2001, Ballesio (1975Ballesio ( , 1980, Poulianos (1977, 1981), Schütt and Hemmer (1978), Riedel (1982), Argant (1988Argant ( , 1991Argant ( , 2010, Dufour (1989), Groiß (1992Groiß ( , 2002, Gross (1992), Turner (1999), Gužvica (1998), Kleczko (1999), Garciá Garciá (2003), Castaños (2005), Bona (2006), Testu (2006), Argant et al (2007), Hankó (2007, Ovodov and Tarasov (2009), Baryshnikov and Tsoukala (2010), Lewis et al (2010), Baryshnikov (2011Baryshnikov ( , 2016, Hemmer and Keller (2011), Sabol (2011a, Sotnikova and Foronova (2014), Argant and Brugal (2017), Pacher (2018) and Sabol et al (2018).…”
Section: Morphometric Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The three subspecies of the cave lion differ in size and several morphological features. As compared to P. s. fossilis, P. s. spelaea possesses: larger incisors; more flattened and narrower canines; narrower P3 with shorter and higher paracone, more reduced protocone and metastyle and weaker distal cingulum; narrower P4 with shorter protocone, smaller and lower parastyle, and paracone shorter than metastyle; narrower p3 with shorter and lower protoconid; shorter and narrower p4 with longer and lower protoconid; more elongated and narrower m1, which is longer than p4 and has higher and longer protoconid and weaker or absent median lingual bulge (Kurtén 1960;Dietrich 1968;Hemmer and Schütt 1970;Ballesio 1975;Schütt and Hemmer 1978;Argant 1988Argant , 1991Groiss 1992Groiss , 2002Gužvica 1998;Baryshnikov and Boeskorov 2001;Hemmer 2003Hemmer , 2004Bona 2006;Sotnikova and Nikolskiy 2006;Argant et al 2007;Hankó 2007;Barycka 2008;Baryshnikov and Tsoukala 2010;Bona and Sardella 2012;Sabol 2014;Sotnikova and Foronova 2014;Marciszak et al 2014, Prat-Vericat et al 2022. According to Argant and Brugal (2017), P. s. intermedia is smaller than P. s. fossilis and has: less massive muscle attachments; a shorter and triangular-shaped mandibular ramus with shallower and shorter masseteric fossa; narrower canines; narrower P4 with almost straight buccal margins; narrower m1 with less developed median bulge; and more gracile metapodials and calcaneus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%