The Early Miocene Bats (Chiroptera, Mammalia) From The Karstic Sites Of Erkertshofen And Petersbuch 2 (Southern Germany) Author Rosina, Valentina V. Author Rummel, Michael text Fossil Imprint 2019 2019-12-30 75 3 - 4 412 437 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/if-2019-0026 journal article 10.2478/if-2019-0026 2533-4069 5383141 Rhinolophus dehmi ZIEGLER , 1993 Text-fig. 2f, i, k–m M a t e r i a l. Erkertshofen 1: BSP 1962 XIX 4151, left C inf.; BSP 1962 XIX 4154, right mnd with p4; BSP 1962 XIX 4157, right m1; BSP 1962 XIX 4159, left m2; BSP 1962 XIX 4150, left C inf.; BSP 1962 XIX 4151, left C inf.; BSP 1962 XIX 4161, right C sup.; BSP 1962 XIX 4162, left C sup.; BSP 1962 XIX 4163, left C sup.; BSP 1962 XIX 4164, right P4; BSP 1962 XIX 4165, right P4; BSP 1962 XIX 4168, left M1; BSP 1962 XIX 4169, left M1 (damaged); BSP 1962 XIX 4170, right M1 (damaged). Table 4. Small Rhinolophus species from Petersbuch 2 (P 2), Erkertshofen 1 (E 1) and Erkertshofen 2 (E 2), sample statistics of the teeth and jaws.

Species Measur.	Loc.	n	R. grivensis R m		S	n	R. dehmi R m		S	n	R. cf. delphinensis R m S
P 2	5	1.20–1.30	1.26	0.042	46	1.40–1.80	1.58	0.072	–	–	–	–
LC	E 1	–	–	–	–	3	1.55–1.75	1.65	0.100	1	1.85	–	–
E 2	1	1.30	–	–	7	1.40–1.80	1.54	0.135	–	–	–	–
P 2	5	0.90–1.05	0.99	0.065	46	1.05–1.40	1.19	0.058	–	–	–	–
WC	E 1	–	–	–	–	3	1.25–1.40	1.33	0.076	1	1.40	–	–
E 2	1	1.00	–	–	7	1.05–1.50	1.20	0.147	–	–	–	–
P 2	1	2.30	–	–	22	2.55–3.00	2.80	0.131	–	–	–	–
HC	E 1	–	–	–	–	3	2.80–3.25	3.07	0.236	1	3.15
E 2	–	–	–	–	3	2.65–3.05	2.87	0.202	–	–
LP4	P 2 E 1	2 –	1.10 –	– –	– –	13 2	1.10–1.25 1.20–1.25	1.18 1.23	0.049 0.035	2 –	ca. 1.40–1.45 –	– –	– –
WP4	P 2 E 1	2 –	1.30–ca. 1.35 –	– –	– –	14 2	1.45–1.70 1.60–1.65	1.55 1.63	0.074 0.035	2 –	ca. 2.00 –	– –	– –
LP4–M3	P 2	–	–	–	–	1	ca. 4.95	–	–	–	–	–	–
LM1–M3	P 2	–	–	–	–	1	ca. 4.15	–	–	–	––	–	–
P 2	1	1.45	–	–	20	1.55–1.70	1.64	0.046	–	–	–	–
LM1	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	1.70	–	–	2	1.85	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	5	1.55–1.70	1.61	0.055	–	–	–	–
P 2	2	1.60–ca. 1.65	–	–	20	1.80–2.10	1.95	0.092	–	–	–	–
WM1	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	2.00	–	–	2	2.20–2.30	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	5	1.80–2.10	1.93	0.110	–	–	–	–
P 2	2	1.45	–	–	25	1.45–1.65	1.54	0.047	–	–	–	–
LM2	E 1	1	1.4	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1.90	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	7	1.50–1.60	1.52	0.045	–	–	–	–
P 2	2	1.65	–	–	26	1.70–1.95	1.86	0.065	–	–	–	–
WM2	E 1	1	1.60	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2.15	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	7	ca. 1.75–1.85	1.83	0.027	–	–	–	–
LM3	P 2 E 2	1 –	1.15 –	– –	– –	10 2	1.15–1.25 1.25	1.17 –	0.036 –	– –	– –	– –	– –
WM3	P 2 E 2	1 –	1.45	– –	– –	9 1	1.65–1.75 1.65	1.68 –	0.043 –	– –	– –	– –	– –
P 2	–	–	–	–	12	0.90–1.10	0.99	0.061	–	–	–	–
Lc	E 1	–	–	–	–	3	0.95–1.15	1.05	0.104	1	1.10	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	5	0.95–1.20	1.05	0.117	1	1.20	–	–
P 2	–	–	–	–	12	0.85–1.05	0.95	0.062	–	–	–	–
Wc	E 1	–	–	–	–	3	1.10–1.15	1.13	0.029	1	1.20	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	5	0.90–1.20	1.06	0.129	–	–	–	–
P 2	–	–	–	–	5	1.45–2.10	1.84	0.251	–	–	–	–
Hc	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	2.20	–	–	1	2.25	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	2	1.60–2.15	1.88	0.389	–	–	–	–
P 2	–	–	–	–	10	1.05–1.30	1.18	0.075	–	–	–	–
Lp4	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	1.20	–	–	–	–	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	1	1.15	–	–	2	1.25–1.35	1.30	0.071
P 2	–	–	–	–	10	0.80–1.00	0.90	0.058	–	–	–	–
Wp4	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	0.95	–	–	–	–	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	2	0.90–ca. 1.00	0.95	0.071	2	1.00	–	–
Lm1–3	P 2 E 1	– –	– –	– –	– –	2 –	4.45–4.65 –	4.55 –	0.141 –	– 1	– 5.25	– –	– –
Lm1–2	P 2 E 1	– –	– –	– –	– –	4 –	3.15–3.30 –	3.24 –	0.075 –	– 2	– 3.75–3.80	– 3.78	– 0.030

Table 4. continued.

Species Measur.	Loc.	n	R. grivensis R m		S	n	R. dehmi R m		S	n	R. cf. delphinensis R m S
Lm2–3	P 2 E 1	– –	– –	– –	– –	5 –	2.80–3.20 –	3.00 –	0.146 –	– 1	– 3.40	– –	– –
P 2	1	1.45	–	–	23	1.40–1.65	1.50	0.063	–	–	–	–
Lm3	E 1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	1.70	–	–
E 2	–	–	–	–	2	1.40–1.45	1.43	0.035	–	–	–	–
P 2	1	0.85	–	–	22	0.85–0.95	0.91	0.041	–	–	–	–
Wtrm3	E 1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	1.00–1.10	1.05	0.071
E 2	–	–	–	–	2	0.95	–	–	–	–	–	–
P 2	1	0.80	–	–	22	0.80–1.05	0.89	0.062	–	–	–	–
Wtlm3	E 1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	1.00–1.10	1.05	0.071
E 2	–	–	–	–	2	0.90	–	–	–	–	–	–
P 2	2	1.55	–	–	22	1.55–1.75	1.65	0.054	–	–	–	–
Lm2	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	1.6	–	–	3	1.85–1.90	1.88	0.029
E 2	–	–	–	–	3	1.65–1.75	1.68	0.058	–	–	–	–
P 2	2	0.85	–	–	23	0.90–1.10	0.95	0.051	–	–	–	–
Wtrm2	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	0.95	–	–	3	1.00–1.20	1.10	0.100
E 2	–	–	–	3	0.90–1.00	0.95	0.050	–	–	–	–
P 2	2	0.95	–	–	24	1.00–1.15	1.06	0.040	–	–	–	–
Wtlm2	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	1.10	–	–	3	1.15–1.25	1.18	0.058
E 2	–	–	–	–	3	1.05–1.10	1.08	0.029	–	–	–	–
P 2	1	1.60	–	–	24	1.65–1.85	1.76	0.067	–	–	–	–
Lm1	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	1.70	–	–	3	1.95–2.00	1.98	0.029
E 2	–	–	–	4	1.75–1.90	1.81	0.063	–	–	–	–
P 2	1	0.85	–	–	24	0.85–1.00	0.93	0.044	–	–	–	–
Wtrm1	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	0.90	–	–	3	1.00–1.15	1.07	0.076
E 2	–	–	–	–	5	0.95–1.00	0.96	0.022	–	–	–	–
P 2	–	0.90	–	–	24	0.95–1.10	1.02	0.042	–	–	–	–
Wtlm1	E 1	–	–	–	–	1	1.00	–	–	3	1.10–1.20	1.13	0.058
E 2	–	–	–	–	5	1.00–1.10	1.04	0.042	–	–	–	–
Hmdm1	P 2 E 1	– –	– –	– –	– –	13 1	1.60–2.10 1.75	1.83 –	0.160 –	– 1	– 1.80	– –	– –
Hmdm3	P 2 E 1	– –	– –	– –	– –	7 –	1.60–2.20 –	1.79 –	0.213 –	– 2	– ca. 1.80–2.00	– 1.90	– 0.141

Erkertshofen 2: BSP 1974 XIV 1109, 1097, 1098, 1100– 1108, 1110–1112, 1146, 1188 (16 isolated lower teeth); BSP 1974 XIV 1113, right mnd with m3; BSP 1974 XIV 1122– 1124, 1126–1136, 1115–1121 (21 isolated upper teeth); BSP 1974 XIV 1125, right mxl with M1. Petersbuch 2: BSP 1976 XXII 5504–5507, 5518, 5547, 5549–5552, PCMRCh37–39, 51b, 54a–i, 57e, 86f, 89 (26 mandibles with teeth); BSP 1976 XXII 11067a–f, 11068a–m, 11070, PCMRCh24–26, PCMRCh50a–g, 51a, 52a–d, 53, 55a–e, 56a–f, 57a–b, 57d, 57f–h, 86a–e (58 isolated lower teeth); BSP 1976 XXII 5519, 5541, 5542, PCMRCh32–34, 46a–c (9 maxillary fragments with teeth); BSP 1976 XXII 5544a–i, 5545a–d, PCMRCh28, 73, 35–36, 40a–r, 41a–w, 44a–l, 45a–q, 46d–l, 47a–g, 71–76 (105 isolated upper teeth). M e a s u r e m e n t s. See Tab. 4. D e s c r i p t i o n. The shape of the fossil jaw fragments are typical for the Rhinolophus . The preserved remains morphologically correspond to R. dehmi described in detail earlier (see Rosina and Rummel 2012: 468 , Ziegler 1993: 136–140 ). The upper canine is semilunar in occlusal view with a flat lingual surface and a well-developed cingulum ( Text-fig. 2k ). The P4 has a marked talon which protrudes posterolingually. The M1 differs from M2 by having a shorter preparacrista and a more developed talon on the posterolingual side of the crown. The lower canine is crescentshaped in occlusal view and surrounded by a well-developed cingulum which forms a small anterolingual broadening and a distinct distolingual cuspule ( Text-fig. 2m ). According to the alveoli, the p2 was large with a single root and the p3 was displaced buccally from the midline of the toothrow ( Text-fig. 2i, l ). The m3 talonid is only slightly smaller than the trigonid ( Text-fig. 2l ). This Rhinolophus species from Petersbuch 2, Erkertshofen 1 and Erkertshofen 2 is considerably smaller than both the R. cf. delphinensis and R. aff. lemanensis from the same sites ( Tabs 3 , 4 ).At the same time, it is significantly larger than R. grivensis ( Tab. 4 ), but compares well in morphology with R. dehmi from the type locality Wintershof-West ( Ziegler 1993 ) and was related to this species.