Notes on Mesocapromys sanfelipensis (Rodentia: Capromyidae) from Cuba Author Viñola López, Lazaro W. Author Garrido, Orlando H. Author Bermúdez, Alberto text Zootaxa 2018 2018-04-16 4410 1 164 176 journal article 30252 10.11646/zootaxa.4410.1.9 931dda11-07b6-41ff-ba39-b226d1c7c437 1175-5326 1221303 3D937E3D-FF0B-4BAF-B329-295A5B6D219A Mesocapromys sanfelipensis (Varona in Varona & Garrido, 1970 ) San Felipe Hutia, Little Earth Hutia Capromys sanfelipensis Varona en Varona & Garrido, 1970 :3 . Capromys sanfelipensis Varona, 1974b:66 (subgen. Mesocapromys ). Mesocapromys ( Paracapromys ) sanfelipensis: Kratochvil et aI., 1978b:46. M [ esocapromys ]. sanfelipensis: Woods et al., 2001: 336 . Mesocapromys sanfelipensis : Silva et al ., 2007: 156 . Referred material: An almost complete skull, very well preserved ( Fig. 3B and fig.4C). The specimen lacks the posterior portion of the parietal, most of the occipital, basioccipital, left temporal, and the left auditory bulla. Of the dentition, only the left fourth premolar is preserved. The specimen is currently deposited in Alberto Bermudez’s personal collection. (AB.d3000). Locality and age: It was collected by Runel Riveron on July of 2015 in Salon del Cuervo, a cave room within Cueva del Indio, close to the town La Jaula, Municipality of San Jose de las Lajas, Mayabeque Province, western Cuba. Rojas et al . (2012) carried out an extensive paleontological study in this cave and made some interpretations about the origin and evolution of the deposit and the surrounding area, based on the taphocoenosis association and the stratigraphy of the deposit. Neotectonic and stratigraphic data, and ecological requirements of some of the species found (e.g. Cyanolimnas cerverai , † Grus cubensis , † Chelonoidis cubensis ) suggest the region was dominated by semideciduous forest and periodically inundated savannah during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition around 10 ka years ago. However, Rojas et al. (2012) did not report remains of Mesocapromys . The age proposed for the deposit was based on paleoecological association (see Rojas et al ., 2007). Macroscopic and microscopic analysis of some fossils found in association to AB.d3000; shows great replacement and destruction of the original organic matrix by minerals during diagenesis, indicating it is not a good candidate for C-14 dating. FIGURE 3. Dorsal view of the skull of M. sanfelipensis (A) CZACC 1.198 holotype (♂), (B) AB.d3000 (fossil), and M. auritus (C) CZACC 1.189 holotype (♂). FIGURE 4. Ventral view of the skull of Mesocapromys sanfelipensis (A) CZACC 1.198 holotype (♂), (B) CZACC 1.261 (♀), (C) AB.d3000 (fossil), and M. auritus (D) CZACC 1.189 holotype (♂). Notice in A and B the extreme variation in the size and disposition of the basicraneal foramina. Description and comparison: The generic position of the specimen is beyond question ( Kratochvil et al ., 1978 ; Silva et al ., 2007). As mentioned by Varona in Varona & Garrido (1970) , the only taxon with which M. sanfelipensis could be confused is M. auritus , but there are well-defined cranial characters that separate both taxa. The skull AB.d3000 is relatively larger than modern M. sanfelipensis and M. auritus while maintaining the same proportions observed in M. sanfelipensis with respect to the relationship between length vs. width of the premolar and length of the diastema vs. alveolar length of the molariform series. The skull is large and low in both species. The frontal is depressed in the interorbital region with the external edges curving upwards, forming well defined supraorbital crests and lacking the postorbital process. Narrow posterior npp are like modern M. sanfelipensis (in contrast to wide in M. auritus ) and lies at the same height of the nasals. The lower zygomatic root is of similar deep as in M. sanfelipensis , while shallower in M. auritus . The szr is wide as in M. sanfelipensis while almost absent or very narrow in M. auritus . The auditory bulla is relatively large, being nearly the length of the molariform series like modern M. sanfelipensis ( Varona & Garrido, 1970 ) . On the premolar, the hypoflexid meets the mesoflexid by preposition like in M. sanfelipensis , while the hypoflexid is separated from the mesoflexid in M. auritus ( Fig. 5 . The inferior edge of the zygomatic arch is slightly inclined interiorly, like in the San Felipe Hutia. The morphology, size, and disposition of the basicranial foramina in M. sanfelipensis is highly variable ( Fig. 3 ) and overlies with the variation range of M. auritus (Silva et al ., 2007) ; indeed, this character cannot be used to separate the two species as was assumed in the original description ( Varona & Garrido, 1970 ). The width of the basioccipital and the basisphenoid is also variable; in some skulls, both are wide ( Fig. 3a ) whereas in others are narrow ( Fig. 3b ). In the fossil specimen, the basisphenoid bone is narrower than the modern ones ( Fig. 4c ). The posterior edge of the palatine of AB.d3000 is nearly U-shaped and presents a middle spine, as in other recent specimens. The external edge of the palatine is also more open in modern skulls ( Fig. 4a ). The vertex of the anterior edge of the palatine is localized at the height of the limit between the 2nd and the 3rd molar, in modern specimens it can be found between the limit of the 2nd and the 3rd and the middle of the 3rd molar. Ten of the seventeen measurements evaluated on the fossil skull are larger than on modern specimens ( Table 1 ). However, only 4 of them are 5% greater, the interorbital width (5.3%), the nasal width (8.9%), the premolar length (6.4%), and the alveolar length of the molariform (11.6%). TABLE 1. Cranial measurements (mm) of modern and fossil specimens of Mesocapromys sanfelipensis compared with M. auritus . ( N ) Mean ± DE (Range).
Measurement M. sanfelipensis (modern) M. sanfelipensis (fossil) M. auritus (from Silva et al ., 2007)
Skull
Interorbital width (6) 14,09 ± 0,5 (13,15–14,55) (1) 15.36 (4) 14,3 ± 0,71 (13,4–15,1)
Frontal width (6) 16,26 ± 0,93 (14,84–17,58) (1) 15.82 (4) 16,8 ± 0,72 (15,8–17,4)
Temporal width (6) 20,77 ± 0,52 (20,04–21.57) (1) 21.25 (4) 20,7 ± 0,84 (19,6–21,6)
Intertemporal width (6) 6,98 ± 0,56 (6,24–7,75) (1) 6.82 (4) 6,2 ± 1,46 (4,8–8,0)
Nasal width (6) 7,75 ± 0,5 (7,26–8,4) (1) 9.22 (4) 7,9 ± 0,51 (7,3–8,5)
Zygomatic width (6) 31,7 ± 0,84 (30,82–33.19) (1) 33.98 (4) 31,2 ± 0,81 (30,1–32,1)
Mastoid width (6) 23,52 ± 0,48 (22,85–24,26) (4) 23,6 ± 0,92 (22,7–24,8)
Alveolar length of the molariform series (6) 12,99 ± 1,13 (11,99–13,56) (1) 15.34 (4) 12,4 ± 0,21 (12,2–12,7)
Coronal length of the molariform series (6) 12,92 ± 0,73 (11,79–13,71) (4) 22,4 ± 0,90 (21,6–23,3)
Acoustic width (6) 23,49 ± 0,74 (22,54–24,67) (4) 24,4 ± 0,76 (23,8–25,4)
Condylar width (6) 11,85 ± 0,71 (11,05–12,86) (4) 11,4 ± 0,54 (10,9–12,1)
Incisive width (6) 3,83 ± 0,37 (3,37–4,41) (3) 3,6 0,15 (3,5–3,8) 4,2
Alveolar premolar width (6) 8,68 ± 0,41 (8,27–9,4) (1) 9.42 (4) 7,8 ± 0,31 (7,4–8,1) 4,0
Coronal premolar width (6) 8,75 ± 0,42 (8,27–9,5) (4) 8,3 ± 0,30 (8,0–8,6) 3,6
Alveolar molar width (6) 11.12 ± 0.67 (10.58–12.38) (1) 12.84 (4) 10,1 ± 0,23 (9,8–10,4) 2,3
Coronal molar width (6) 11,44 ± 0,77 (10,82–12,93) (4) 10,8 ± 0,29 (10,4–11,1)
Basioccipital width (6) 3,54 ± 0,64 (2,66–4,33) (1) 3.37 (4) 3,3 ± 0,42 (2,9–3,9)
Condyle-premaxilla length (6) 58,4 ± 2,83 (56–63,39) (4) 59,7 ± 1,42 (57,6–60,8)
Occipitopremaxila length (6) 62,25 ± 1,18 (60,8–63,39) (4) 63,0 ± 1,05 (61,8–64,3)
Height of the occipital region (6) 14,77 ± 0,71 (13,91–15,65) (4) 14,8 ± 0,88 (13,7–15,8)
Diastema length (6) 16,04 ± 0,76 (15,14–16,86) (1) 17.63 (4) 16,8 ± 0,91 (15,5–17,5)
Nasal length (5) 19,63 ± 0,58 (19,06–20,34) (1) 19.84 (4) 19,0 ± 0,87 (17,9–20,0)
Frontal length (6) 21,23 ± 0,57 (20,46–21,95) (1) 22.13 (4) 21,5 ± 0,67 (20,7–22,3)
Preorbital Arch width (6) 2,14 ± 0,29 (1,75–2,56) (1) 2.0 4 (4) 1,8 ± 0,43 (1,4–2,4)
Zygomatic length (6) 23,28 ± 0,73 (22,45–24,14) (4) 22,4 ± 0,90 (21,6–23,3)
Postfrontal length (6) 23,4 ± 0,7 (22,17–24,31) (4) 22,8 ± 0,47 (22,2–23,2)
Horizontal diameter of the foramen magnum (6) 8,55 ± 0,41 (7,93–9,02) (4) 7,3 ± 0,67 (6,6–8,2)
Vertical diameter of the foramen magnum (6) 8,92 ± 0,4 (8,56–9,62) (4) 7,8 ± 0,42 (7,4–8,4)
Coronal Premolar length (6) 3,94 ± 0,16 (3,76–4,23) (1) 4.52
Coronal Premolar width (6) 3,23 ± 0,23 (2,86–3,45) (1) 3.43
TABLE 2. Measurements (mm) of the postcranial elements of Mesocapromys fanfelipensis . * Include measurements given by Varona and Garrido (1970).
Measurements Mesocapromys fanfelipensis
Mandible (N) Mean ± DE (Range)
Incisive width (6) 1,44 ± 0,08 (1,35–1,57)
Coronal length of the molariform series (6) 12,95 ± 0,49 (12,14–13,52)
Alveolar length of the molariform series (6) 13,25 ± 0,47 (12,73–13,9)
Diastema lenght (6) 9,67 ± 0,24 (9,32–9,93)
Angulosynphisial length (6) 44,48 ± 1,2 (43,72–46,6)
Coronoid height (6) 16,39 ± 0,46 (15,75–17,14)
Condylar height (6) 17,88 ± 0,57 (17,27–18,8)
Corporal height (6) 12,14 ± 0,59 (11,02–12,65)
Greater width of ascending branch (6) 12,74 ± 0,43 (12,11–13,28)
Lesser width of ascending branch (6) 4,88 ± 0,22 (4,62–5,14)
Synphysis length (6) 16, 88 ± 0,79 (15,96–17,9)
Condylosynphysial length (6) 38,94 ± 0,82 (38,36–40,21)
Humerus
Total length (4) 40,74 ± 1,39 (38,84–42)*
Proximal width (2) 7,85 ± 0,19 (7,71–7,98)
Diaphysis width (2) 3,22 ± 0,05 (3,18–3,25)
Distal width (2) 9,92 ± 0,4 (9,63–10,2)
Deltoid length (2) 19,95 ± 1,29 (19,04–20,86)
Deltoid depth (2) 7,3 ± 0,13 (7,2–7,39)
Ulna
Total length (3) 48,11 ± 0,61 (47,64–48,8)*
Diaphysis width (1) 1,78
Diaphysis depth (1) 3,65
Radius
Total length (3) 37,35 ± 0,48 (36,84–37,8)*
Proximal width (1) 5,35
Distal width (1) 4,31
Diaphysis depth (1) 2,14
Pelvis
Total length (2) 58,97 ± 2,26 (57,37–60,56)
Posterior width (2) 23,46 ± 3,02 (21,32–25,59)
Greater diameter of the acetabulum (2) 6,2 ± 0,17 (6,08–6,32)
Lesser diameter of the acetabulum (2) 16,73 ± 0,13 (16,64–16,82)
Femur
Total length (4) 49,34 ± 1,8 (46,8–50)*
Proximal width (2) 12,67 ± 1,99 (11,26–14,08)
Distal width (2) 11,02 ± 0,62 (10,58–11,46)
Diaphysis width (2) 5,97 ± 1,65 (5,38–6,55)
Intertrochanteric length (2) 13,36 ± 1,52 (12,28–14,43)
Diaphysis depth (2) 4,01 ± 0,46 (3,68–4,33)
......continued on the next page