Dryopithecus crusafonti sp. nov., a new Miocene Hominoid species from Can Ponsic (northeastern Spain)

Abstract

Reanalysis of the sample of Miocene Hominoidea from Spain, together with the entire sample of European Miocene Hominoidea, has revealed a number of distinctive traits among the specimens from the early Vallesian locality of Can Ponsic (Crusafont and Hürzeler, 1969; Crusafont and Golpe, 1973; Hartenberger and Crusafont, 1979; Agusti et al., 1984, 1985). The Can Ponsic sample, while sharing characteristics with other samples of Dryopithecus from Europe, is sufficiently distinctive to form the basis for a new species. Characteristic of the new species are a distinctive lower molar occlusal morphology, large, broad upper molars, and very high crowned upper central incisors with well‐developed lingual pillars. The new species shares characteristics with Dryopithecus laietanus, the only other species of the genus in Spain, and lacks derived features of non‐Spanish Dryopithecus. Four species of Dryopithecus are now known (Begun, 1987, 1988a, and in preparation). Their distribution and morphology have significant implications for the biogeography and phylogeny of this early great ape genus.

The primate fossil record in the Iberian Peninsula

“…At the same time, several shared-derived dental features suggest that they belong to a single genus, even though the lack of cranial material from Can Poncic makes the generic attribution to Hispanopithecus somewhat provisional, and some authors maintain its original assignment to Dryopithecus (Pickford, 2012). The partial mandible from Teuleria del Firal (Vidal, 1913a, b;Woodward, 1914), traditionally attributed to Dryopithecus fontani (Harrison, 1991;Andrews et al, 1996;Ribot et al, 1996), is also included here in the hypodigm of H. crusafonti (Begun, 1992;Casanovas-Vilar et al, 2011;Alba et al, 2012c), given some dental differences relative to D. fontani from France and several resemblances to the few lower teeth available from Can Poncic 1.…”

“…Subsequently, Hispanopithecus was treated as a junior subjective synonym of Dryopithecus by many authors (Szalay and Delson, 1979;Moyà Solà et al, 1990;Begun et al, 1990;Harrison, 1991;Andrews et al, 1996;Begun, 1992Begun, , 2002b, albeit with some exceptions (Golpe Posse, 1993;Cameron, 1997Cameron, , 1999. Recently, Hispanopithecus was resurrected (Moyà- Solà et al, 2009a), including not only the type species, but also H. crusafonti (see below)-a proposal that has been subsequently followed by most researchers (e.g., Begun, 2009;Alba et al, 2010aAlba et al, , 2011aAlba et al, , b, 2012bBegun et al, 2012).…”

“…Although initial finds were assigned to Hispanopithecus laietanus, after the recovery of more abundant material, Dryopithecus crusafonti was distinguished (Begun, 1992); it was recently transferred to the genus Hispanopithecus by Moyà- Solà et al (2009a). After its description, this taxon has been accepted (Begun, 2002b;Casanovas-Vilar et al, 2011;Pickford, 2012), questioned (Andrews et al, 1996), or formally synonymized with H. laietanus (Ribot et al, 1996).…”

“…After its description, this taxon has been accepted (Begun, 2002b;Casanovas-Vilar et al, 2011;Pickford, 2012), questioned (Andrews et al, 1996), or formally synonymized with H. laietanus (Ribot et al, 1996). On the basis of dental differences between the Can Poncic 1 sample and those of H. laietanus from later Vallesian localities (Begun, 1992), a distinct species status is favored here, following Alba et al (2012c). At the same time, several shared-derived dental features suggest that they belong to a single genus, even though the lack of cranial material from Can Poncic makes the generic attribution to Hispanopithecus somewhat provisional, and some authors maintain its original assignment to Dryopithecus (Pickford, 2012).…”

On the identity of a hominoid male upper canine from the Vallès-Penedès Basin figured by Pickford (2012)

“…cus brevirostris and Dryopithecus fontani from several localities of the Abocador de Can Mata (ACM) local stratigraphic series , 2009a, whereas Late Miocene taxa include Hispanopithecus laietanus and Hispanopithecus crusafonti (Begun et al, 1990;Begun, 1992;Golpe Posse, 1993;Moyà-Solà & Köhler, 1995;Alba et al, submitted). Pickford (2012) provisionally maintained the latter species within Dryopithecus, concluding that it might be a junior synonym of Udabnopithecus garedziensis, and further noting similarities with Anoiapithecus brevirostris and Neopithecus brancoi (considered a nomen dubium by Casanovas-Vilar et al, 2011, but a taxonomically valid taxon by him).…”