Two  isolated  proteid  vertebrae  are  described:  the  first  is  from  the  Pliocene 

Kotlovina locality, Ukraine, and is referred to Mioproteus sp., whereas the second is from the lower Pleistocene 

Chishmikioi  locality  in  Moldavia  (former  USSR)  and  is  referred  to  “Mioproteus”  wezei.  This  problematic 

species is distinct from the Miocene M. caucasicus and may pertain to a distinct genus that includes aquatic 

ancestors for the modern troglobitic Proteus.Описаны два позвонка, отнесенные к Mioproteus sp. и «Mioproteus» wezei и происходящие из соответственно плиоценового местонахождения Котловина в Украине и раннеплейстоценового местонахождения Чишмикиой в Молдавии. Последний вид отличен от миоценового M. caucasicus и, возможно, его следует выделить в особый род, объединяющий речных предков современных пещерных Proteus

Averianov, A.O.

Vestnik Zoologii

Наукова електронна бібліотека періодичних видань НАН України (Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine)

Vestnik zoologii, 35(1): 43—46, 2001 © 2001 A. O. Averianov UDC 567.9 : 551.782.2(477, 478) NEW RECORDS OF PROTEID SALAMANDERS  (AMPHIBIA, CAUDATA) FROM THE PLIOCENE OF UKRAINE AND LOWER PLEISTOCENE OF MOLDAVIA A. O. Averianov Zoological Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab., 1, St.-Petersburg, 199034 Russia E-mail: sasha@AA1923.spb.edu Accepted 24 April 2000 New Records of Proteid Salamanders (Amphibia, Caudata) from the Pliocene of Ukraine and Lower Pleistocene of Moldavia. Averianov A. O. – Two isolated proteid vertebrae are described: the first is from the Pliocene Kotlovina locality, Ukraine, and is referred to Mioproteus sp., whereas the second is from the lower Pleistocene Chishmikioi locality in Moldavia (former USSR) and is referred to “Mioproteus” wezei. This problematic species is distinct from the Miocene M. caucasicus and may pertain to a distinct genus that includes aquatic ancestors for the modern troglobitic Proteus. Key  wo rd s : Amphibia, Caudata, Proteidae, Mioproteus, Pliocene, Pleistocene, Ukraine, Moldavia. Íîâûå íàõîäêè ïðîòåèäíûõ õâîñòàòûõ àìôèáèé (Amphibia, Caudata) èç ïëèîöåíà Óêðàèíû è íèæíåãî ïëåéñòîöåíà Ìîëäàâèè. Àâåðüÿíîâ À. Î. – Îïèñàíû äâà ïîçâîíêà, îòíåñåííûå ê Mioproteus sp. è «Mioproteus» wezei è ïðîèñõîäÿùèå èç ñîîòâåòñòâåííî ïëèîöåíîâîãî ìåñòîíàõîæäåíèÿ Êîòëîâèíà â Óêðàèíå è ðàííåïëåéñòîöåíîâîãî ìåñòîíàõîæäåíèÿ ×èøìèêèîé â Ìîëäàâèè. Ïîñëåäíèé âèä îòëè÷åí îò ìèîöåíîâîãî M. caucasicus è, âîçìîæíî, åãî ñëåäóåò âûäåëèòü â îñîáûé ðîä, îáúåäèíÿþùèé ðå÷íûõ ïðåäêîâ ñîâðåìåííûõ ïåùåðíûõ Proteus. Êëþ÷åâûå  ñëîâà : Amphibia, Caudata, Proteidae, Mioproteus, ïëèîöåí, ïëåéñòîöåí, Óêðàèíà, Ìîëäà-âèÿ. Introduction Proteids (Proteidae) are a family of specialized, paedomorphic, perennibranchiate salamanders with an elongate body. Extant proteids are confined to Europe and North America, but in the past the family’s range extended as far eastwards as Kazakhstan or, possible, Kirghisia. The fossil record for the Proteidae is limited (Estes, 1981), particularly from the territory of the former Soviet Union. Badly preserved vertebrae of Proteidae? were reported from the lower Eocene Andarak II locality in Kirghisia (×õèêâàäçå, 1984). The middle Miocene (middle Sarmatian, Vallesian) Mioproteus caucasicus Estes, Darevsky, 1977 was described on the basis of isolated vertebrae and some cranial elements from the Maikop locality in the North Caucasus, Russia (Estes, Darevsky, 1977). Mioproteus sp. was reported from the Miocene Kentyubek locality in western Kazakhstan (Áåíäóêèäçå, ×õèêâàäçå, 1976; ×õèêâàäçå, 1984; Estes, 1981). Chkhikvadze (×õèêâàäçå, 1981: 152) stated that “probably all the salamander amphicoelous vertebrae from the [Mio-Pliocene Moldavian and Ukrainian] localities Buzhory, Male, Novoelisavetovka, Novaya Emetovka, Cherevichnoe, and Kuchurgan should be referred to the genus Mioproteus.” These records were repeated in Chkhikvadze (×õèêâàäçå, 1984) and Chkhikvadze & Lungu (×õèêâàäçå, Ëóíãó, 1984), who referred a fragmentary vertebra from the middle Sarmatian (Vallesian, MN 9) Moldavian Buzhory locality to Mioproteus sp. However, amphicoelous vertebrae are also characteristic for many salamander families, including the Cryptobranchidae and Hynobiidae, both of which are also known from the Neogene of Eurasia (Roček, 1994; Averianov, Tjutkova, 1995; Venczel 1999). For example, the cryptobranchid Andrias [sp.] was reported from the Ruscinian (MN 14) Kuchurgan locality in Moldavia (×õèêâàäçå, 1981, 1984) and some Miocene localities in Moldavia (×õèêâàäçå, 1984). The ZIN PH collection contains an undescribed dentary fragment of a cryptobranchid from the lower Ruscinian (MN 14) Antipovka locality, Voronezh Region of Russia. None of the vertebrae from the localities mentioned by Chkhikvadze has been described or illustrated and their attribution to proteid salamanders remains to be demonstrated; these records are not considered future here. The only reliable, published records of fossil European Proteidae are the following: M. caucasicus from the middle Miocene of Maikop, western Russia and Appertshofen, Germany; Orthophyia longa Meyer, 1845 from the upper Miocene of Oeningen, Germany; “Mioproteus” wezei (Estes in Młynarski et al. 1984) from the lower Pliocene of Węże II, Poland and up-per Pliocene of Balaruc II, France; and Proteus bavaricus Brunner, 1956 from the Pleistocene of Kleinen A. O. Averianov 44 Teufelshöle, Germany (Dehm 1961; Estes, Darevsky, 1977; Estes, 1981; Młynarski et al., 1984 and references therein). The proteid vertebrae from the Miocene of Kentyubek, western Kazakhstan (Áåíäóêèäçå, ×õèêâàäçå, 1976) are probably referable to M. causcasicus (Estes, 1981: 27), but they still not described. In this note I describe two isolated proteid vertebrae: one is from the Pliocene Kotlovina locality, Ukraine, and is referred to Mioproteus sp.; the second vertebra is from the lower Pleistocene Chishmikioi locality, Moldavia (former USSR Republic), and is referred to “Mioproteus” wezei. The materials described herein are housed in the Paleoherpetological collection of the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St.-Petersburg (ZIN PH). Order CAUDATA Oppel, 1811 Family Proteidae Hogg, 1838 Mioproteus Estes & Darevsky, 1977 Mioproteus sp. (fig. 1) Ma t e r i a l . ZIN PH 1/14, trunk vertebra. Kotlovina, Odessa Province, Ukraine. Pliocene. Descr ip t ion . The vertebra is relatively broad transversely and short anteroposteriorly. The centrum is amphicoelous, without peripheral calcification in the cotyles. The ventromedian keel is shallow. Weak posterior basapophyses are present. The centrum is deeply excavated to either side and below the transverse processes. There are two separate subcentral foramina on the right side and large single foramen on the left side. The transverse process is unicipital, without a trace of the rib articulation surface. There is a prominent, flange-like and horizontal ventral lamina on the transverse process. The posterior edge of the lamina extends posterolaterally. A prominent vertical lamina originates from the underside of the interzygapophyseal ridge and extends posteroventrally to join with the ventral lamina at the posterior edge of the latter. Just anterior and posterior to the vertical lamina there are two foramina that are confluent with the subcentral foramen. The neural arch is flattened. The neural spine is a poorly developed keel. The posterior surface of the neural arch is deeply incised, but lacks the posteriorly directed “forks” that are characteristic for trunk vertebrae in M. caucasicus. The centrum length is 6.20 mm. Compar i son. The vertebra de-scribed is referred to Proteidae by the following combination of characters: 1) transverse process unicipital; 2) there is no trace of rib articulation surface; 3) transverse process with prominent ven-tral and vertical laminae. It is referred to Mioproteus by posterior basapophyses pre-sent, neural arch relatively wide, and ventral surface of centrum flattened. The specimen described is within the size range of the type species, M. caucasicus (centrum length 2.50—6.65 mm, Estes, Darevsky, 1977: 165). It differs from the latter in lacking a distinct “fork” at the posterior margin of neural arch and in lacking an anteriorly projecting process arising from the ventral lamina of the transverse process. Comments . There are three fos-siliferous levels at the Kotlovina locality, one Ruscinian and two early Villafran- Fig. 1. Mioproteus, ZIN PH 1/14, trunk vertebra. Kotlovina,Odessa Province, Ukraine. Pliocene: A – dorsal; B – ventral; C – anterior; D – posterior; E – right lateral views. Scale –1 mm. Ðèñ. 1. Mioproteus ÇÈÍ PH 1/14, òóëîâèùíûé ïîçâîíîê. Êîòëîâèíà, Îäåññêàÿ îáë, Óêðàèíà. Ïëèîöåí: A – äîð-ñàëüíî; B – âåíòðàëüíî; C – ñïåðåäè; D – ñçàäè; E –ñïðàâà. Ìàñøòàá – 1 ìì.New Records of Proteid Salamanders... 45chian (Òîïà÷åâñêèé, Íåñèí, 1989). The stratigraphic provenance ZIN PH 1/14 is uncer-tain because it is not known from which level the specimen was collected. “Mioproteus” wezei (Estes in Młynarski et al. 1984) (fig. 2) Ma t e r i a l . ZIN PH 2/14, anterior trunk vertebra. Chishmikioi, Moldavia. Lower Pleistocene. Descr ip t ion . The vertebra amphicoelous, lightly ossified, and relatively elongate. The prezygapophysis is large, projects anterolaterally, and bears a well defined articular facet. The ventromedian keel is flattened anteriorly, but the form of the more posterior part of the keel is unknown because the remainder of the centrum is broken. Along the middle part the crest was probably sharply crested. The centrum is deeply excavated in the region of the transverse processes. There are two separate subcentral foramina on the left side and large single foramen on the right side. The transverse process is unicipital, without a trace of the rib articulation surface. There is a prominent ventral lamina on the transverse process, with the posterior edge of the lamina directed posterolaterally. In lateral view the interzygapophyseal ridge is bent dorsally to form an arc. A prominent vertical lamina originates from the interzygapophyseal ridge and extends posteroventrally to join with the ventral lamina at the posterior edge of the latter. Just anterior and posterior to the vertical lamina there are two foramina that are confluent with the subcentral foramen. The neural arch is flattened. The neural crest is a low keel and the neural spine is a low, posterodorsally projecting process. The posterior edge of the neural arch is not incised and has no “forks”. The centrum length is 8.05 mm. Compar i son. The specimen de-scribed is referred to the Proteidae us-ing the same characters listed above for ZIN PH 1/14. ZIN PH 2/14 is most similar to vertebrae of the Pliocene “Mioproteus” wezei having delicate, elongate, and lightly ossified vertebrae, a deeply amphicoelous centrum, lateral cavities delimited by ventral and vertical laminae deep and voluminous, and zygapophyses protuberant. The most striking similarity between the Polish and Moldavian specimens is a great dorsal curvature of the interzy-gapophyseal ridge, which may be a diagnostic feature at the specific or generic level. As in a supposed anterior vertebra of “Mioproteus” wezei (Mły-narski et al., 1984: 212) in ZIN PH 2/14 the neural arch is not forked pos-teriorly; instead the neural spine is a single median projection. ZIN PH 2/14 thus appears to be an anterior trunk vertebra. The specimen described exceeds the known size range for “Mioproteus” wezei vertebrae from Węże II (centrum length 4.3—7.5, M=5.6 mm, Młynarski et al., 1984: 212). Comments . “Mioproteus” wezei apparently was not a troglobitic but normally aquatic animal, judging from the associate fauna and from lack of  Fig. 2. “Mioproteus” wezei, ZIN PH 2/14, anterior trunk verte-bra. Chishmikioi, Moldavia. Early Pleistocene: A – dorsal; B –ventral; C – anterior; D – posterior; E – right lateral views. Scale – 1 mm. Ðèñ. 2. “Mioproteus” wezei, ÇÈÍ PH 2/14, ïåðåäíåòóëîâèù-íûé ïîçâîíîê. ×èøìèêèîé, Ìîëäàâèÿ. Ðàííèé ïëèîöåí. A – äîðñàëüíî; B – âåíòðàëüíî; C – ñïåðåäè; D – ñçàäè; E – ñïðàâà ñáîêó. Ìàñøòàá – 1 ìì. A. O. Averianov 46 mountains close to the locality areas. “Mioproteus” wezei differs from M. caucasicus in having more delicate and elongate vertebrae and, for these reasons, the former species probably should be referred to another genus. This undescribed genus possibly was the aquatic ancestor for the modern troglobitic Proteus. The late Miocene Orthophyia longa from Germany resembles M. caucasicus in having long and narrow vertebrae and relatively short skull. These resemblances may indicate that O. longa and M. caucasicus are congeners or even the same species (Estes, 1981: 29). However, the relatively more elongate vertebrae in O. longa seem to preclude this possibility. Nevertheless, Orthophyia may prove to be the appropriate name for the aquatic European Plio-Pleistocene proteids that are ancestral to modern Proteus. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Igor Danilov (ZIN) and James Gardner (University of Alberta, Canada) for reading of the manuscript and providing useful comments. Áåíäóêèäçå Î. Ð., ×õèêâàäçå Â. Ì. Ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûå ðåçóëüòàòû èçó÷åíèÿ èñêîïàåìûõ àìôèáèé, ðåïòèëèé è ïòèö Òóðãàÿ è Óñòþðòà // Áþë. Ìîñê. îá-âà èñïûò. ïðèðîäû, îòä. ãåîë. – 1976. – 51, âûï. 5. – Ñ. 156. Òîïà÷åâñêèé Â. À., Íåñèí Â. À. Ãðûçóíû ìîëäàâñêîãî è õàïðîâñêîãî ôàóíèñòè÷åñêèõ êîìïëåêñîâ Êîòëîâèí-ñêîãî ðàçðåçà. – Êèåâ : Íàóê. äóìêà, 1989. – 136 ñ. ×õèêâàäçå Â. Ì. Îáçîð ñâåäåíèé îá èñêîïàåìûõ îñòàòêàõ àìôèáèé è ðåïòèëèé èç íåîãåíîâûõ îòëîæåíèé Ñåâåðíîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ // Âîïðîñû ãåðïåòîëîãèè / Ïîä ðåä. È. Ñ. Äàðåâñêîãî : Àâòîðåô. äîêë. V Âñåñîþç. ãåðïåòîë. êîíô., Àøõàáàä, 22—24 ñåíò. 1981 ã. – Ë. : Íàóêà, 1981. – Ñ. 151—152. ×õèêâàäçå Â. Ì. Îáçîð èñêîïàåìûõ õâîñòàòûõ è áåñõâîñòûõ çåìíîâîäíûõ ÑÑÑÐ // Èçâ. ÀÍ ÃðóçÑÑÐ,  Ñåð. áèîë. – 1984. – 10, ¹ 1. – Ñ. 5—13. ×õèêâàäçå Â. Ì., Ëóíãó À. Í. Íîâûå äàííûå î ìèîöåíîâîé ãåðïåòîôàóíå Ìîëäàâèè è Êàâêàçà // Ïàëåîáèî-ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ìåçîçîÿ è êàéíîçîÿ Äíåñòðîâñêî-Ïðóòñêîãî ìåæäóðåüÿ / Ïîä ðåä. À. Í. Ëóíãó. – Êèøèíåâ : Øòèèíöà, 1984. – Ñ. 72—87. Averianov A. O., Tjutkova L. A. Ranodon cf. sibiricus (Amphibia, Caudata) from the Upper Pliocene of Southern Kazakhstan: the first fossil record of the family Hynobiidae // Paläont. Z. – 1995. – 69, Hf. 1/2. – P. 255—262. Bailon S. Présence de Mioproteus wezei (Amphibia, Proteidae) dans le Pliocène supérieur (MN 16) d’Europe de l’Ouest // N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Mh. – 1995. – 1. – P. 1—8. Dehm R. Über neue tertiäre Spaltenfüllungen des süddeutschen Jura- und Muschelkalk-Gebietes // Mitt. Bayer. Staatsamml. Pal. Hist. Geol. – 1961. – 1. – S. 27—56. Estes R. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Part 2. Gymnophionia, Caudata. – Stuttgart ; New York : Gustav Fischer, 1981. – 115 p. Estes R., Darevsky I. Fossil amphibians from the Miocene of the North Caucasus, USSSR // J. Paleontol. Soc. In-dia. – 1977. – 20. – P. 164—169. Młynarski M., Szyndlar Z., Estes R., Sanchíz B. Amphibians and reptiles from the Pliocene locality of Węże II near Działoszyn (Poland) // Acta Palaeontol. Polonica. – 1984. – 29, N 3—4. – P. 209—226. Roček Z. A review of the fossil Caudata of Europe // Abhandl. Berichte Naturk. – 1994. – 17. – P. 51—56. Venczel M. Land salamanders of the family Hynobiidae from the Neogene and Quaternary of Europe // Amphibia-Reptilia. – 1999. – 20, N 4. – P. 401—412. 

New Records of Proteid Salamanders (Amphibia, Caudata) from the Pliocene of Ukraine and Lower Pleistocene of  Moldavia

http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/xmlui/bitstream/123456789/9511/1/05_Averianov.pdf

New Records of Proteid Salamanders (Amphibia, Caudata) from the Pliocene of Ukraine and Lower Pleistocene of Moldavia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Наукова електронна бібліотека періодичних видань НАН України (Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine)