Early Middle Pleistocene Ellobius (Rodentia, Cricetidae, Arvicolinae) from Armenia

Abstract

Early Pliocene) radiation of Arvicolinae (Abramson et al., 2009a, b). Therefore, most specific features of mole voles developed due to a strong burrowing specialization (incisor digging, molar enamel thickening and partial reduction of molars) so that Early Pleistocene forms still show much more arvicoline-looking molars with some mimomyoid characters (e.g. Mimomys-ridge and relics of enamel islets). As with many rapidly evolving arvicoline phylums, molar evolution in mole voles shows a progressive hypsodonty increase from Early Pleistocene to Recent forms expressed in lengthening of dentine tracts of enamel-dentine boundary (Topachevsky & Rekovets, 1982; Zazhigin, 1988; Tesakov, 2008; Fig. 2). Two main branches of mole voles are recognised (Fig. 3). The nominotypical subgenus Ellobius (Ellobius) Fischer, 1814 combines smaller mole voles with the fossil record ranging from Early Pleistocene to recent (Topachevsky & Rekovets, 1982; Tjutkova, 1989

Distinguishing between three modern Ellobius species (Rodentia, Mammalia) and identification of fossil Ellobius from Kaldar Cave (Iran) using geometric morphometric analyses of the first lower molar

“…Previously, Maul et al (2015) considered the AC shape as a discriminant criteria, being broad in Ellobius lutescens, narrow in Ellobius talpinus and elongated in Ellobius fuscocapillus. Tesakov (2016) found that the size of E. lutescens is slightly smaller than E. fuscocapillus. Rey-Rodríguez et al (2020) reported that the confluence between T4 and T5 differs among the species, with T1-T2 and T3-T4 being slightly less pairwise opposed in E. lutescens.…”

“…Ellobius lutescens (western mole vole) is distributed in northwestern Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Armenia and eastern Anatolia (Thomas, 1905;Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951;Darlington, 1957;Osborn, 1962;Walker, 1964;Lay, 1967;Hassinger, 1973;Roberts, 1977;Corbet, 1978;Corbet and Hill, 1991;Coşkun, 1997;Nowak, 1999;Wilson and Reeder, 2005;Kryštufek and Shenbrot, 2016;Wilson et al, 2017). In Iran, this species is found in mountain grasslands, sandy semi-deserts and steppe areas (Kryštufek and Shenbrot, 2016;Tesakov, 2016).…”

“…However, Tesakov (1998) believes that the Ellobius record from Italy belongs to Ungaromys dehmi. According to several authors (compiled in Topachevsky and Rekovets, 1982;Maul and Markova, 2007;Tesakov, 2016), there was a succession of several Ellobius species during the early Pleistocene in Eastern Europe: E. paleotalpinus, E. melitopoliensis, E. primigenis, E. lakhutensis, E. tauricus, E. kujalnikensis and E. tarchancutensis. The morphology of E. tarchancutensis suggests that it could be the ancestor of E. lutescens (Topachevsky and Rekovets, 1982;Tesakov, 2016).…”

“…; Maul et al, 2015), Azokh-1 units Vm, Vu, III, II/III, II (Ellobius sp. ; Fernández-Jalvo, 2016) in Nagorno Karabakh and Krasarin (Ellobius (Bramus) pomeli; Tesakov, 2016).…”

“…The identification of most Ellobius specimens in museums collections is based on criteria which is usually not applicable to fragmented fossil material. Previous studies on Ellobius have mainly focused on chromosomes (Romanenko et al, 2007(Romanenko et al, , 2018(Romanenko et al, , 2020Coşkun, 2016) and species discrimination based on external characters, not applicable to fossils (Gharkheloo, 2003;Tesakov, 2016). In the archaeological literature, taxonomic attributions are often restricted to Ellobius sp.…”