Dicerorhinus cf. hemitoechus (Mammalia, Perissodactyla) from the

av8poono.;:
Ol'rJd40
THI:
ANElPOnOJ\OrlKHI
lTA1PilAX
T6f.tO~ 6o~,
I""'AAOX
1979
(revap"fl~)
DICERORHINUS
cf. H.EMITOECHUS
(Mammalia Perissodactyla)
from the Middle Pleistocene Cave
at Petralona .. Chalkidiki N. Greece
58
(PRELIMINARY REPORT)
By MIKAEL FORTELIUS & NIKOS A. POULIANOS
Introduction
The rhinoceros remains from the Petralona Cave, of mainly
lower Middle Pleistocene age, come from the two upper layer complexes, referred to as the Crenian and Petralonian, and corresponding roughly to the Cromerian Interglacial and the Mindel (Elster) Glaciation respectively. (Poulianos, A. 1977). In this article we have used
the local terminology in order to avoid confusion by possible later
changes in correlation. For a more detailed treatment of the stratigraphy, and the fauna, see Kurten and Poulianos. (1977: 50ff).
15
The material in question has not been treated in the literature
before, except for a brief comment by Kretzoi (1 977: 141 ). He states
that the remains belong to the genus Stephanorhinus (i.e. Dicerorhinus,
Kretzoi 1942: 312)/ but does not refer them definetely to any species.
On the whole the remains are very few and fragmentary, and
identification can not be considered absolutely certain. We have,
however, tried to give a discussion of the relevant features of each
specimen, and our reasons for identification.
We feel that one comment on the stratigraphical conditions
in the cave is needed, since a new trench (T.B.) has been opened
after the article of Kurten and Poulianos (1977) appeared. In connection with this trench excavations have been undertaken in the «Anthropological Hall», where the top stalagmite lies directly above the
Crenian layers, and no PetraIonian is present. Many of the rhinoceros
finds from this area are more or less embedded in the stalagmite
itself.
The correlation we have used between the older and the newer
trenches was supplied by Dr. A.N. Poulianos (personal communication).
The presence of proportionally many milk-teeth among the
remains is noteworthy. Since the cave has been inhabited by man
during the Middle Pleistocene, it is not inconceivable that at least
some of the remains be a result of his activity. According to Dr. A.N.
Poulianos (1971) the rhinoceros skull was found together with limestone scrapers, inside the zygomatic bones. This may support
the idea just mentioned.
The remains are of the Middle Pleistocene type of the steppe
rhinoceros (i.e. the teeth are moderately hypsodont, the supratemporal crests moderately concave and the remains in general rather small),
corresponding to those described by Falconer (1868) and by Azzaroll (1961) termed Dicerorhinus hemitoechus falconeri and separated
from the Late Pleistocene D. hemitoechus aretinus.
---_.~------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Aris N. Poulianos
for entrusting us with this task, and for help with the partly confused stratigraphical information concerning earlier finds. We also wish to thank Prof. Bjorn Kurten
of the University of Helsinki, who has assisted us in many ways and who read
the manuscript. Moreover thanks are due to Prof. Hans Schaefer of the Naturhistorisches Museum at Basel for his kind permission to study the collections, from
which a few data appear in the comparative tables, to Dr. Burkart Engesser of
the same institution for his kind help and Ch. Stringer of the British Museum.
16
Dicerorhinus cf', hemitoechus (Falconer '1
The marerial
Petralonian period:
partially nvc~cnll'\!n,rt skull T.l-\.
88
p3 dex. T.A.
p4 dex.
200
M2 dex.
219 (41)
upper molar T.A.
(1
partially
right mandible T.A.
200
proximal
of left radius
1 7.
sigmoid
ulna T.A.
220.
6
9
distal part of
femur 0
T.A. 20.9.
distal part of
tibia T.A.
223.
left calcaneum T.A.
120.
Crenian period:
right tibia T.A.
137.
D3 sin. M
542.
fragment of upper deciduous tooth,
0 3 dex. M 77, 544.
4
partially
left maxilla with D2 - 0 , T.B. 1538
fragrnent of upper deciduous tooth T.A. 152.
proximal fragment of right tibia II «baza Kath»,
31 ).
The
skull
During the excavations of 1968 a
skull was
recovered.
a reconstruction of
was made. with
the original bone fragments in situ.
it is this reconstruction
that Kretzoi has in mind when he writes about «a
complete skull»
(Kretzoi 1977 : 141). The reconstruction has now been taken apart.
consist
of the skull roof from the posThe
terior part of the second horn base to the
crest, and the posterior parts of the maxillae with
of the
arches.
The left maxilla carries the last
and the molars, the right
one the molars only. The
has been lost, as well as the surround-
17
Photo '1: Hind part of
Dicerorhinus cf. hemitoechus skull, seen from the left.
ing area and the entire anterior
of the skull and the
rt'nrn":1~lnC'
con-
can
for
treated
a few features
lend themselves
discussion.
....."""'J.I.'JI ~u~ crest is well developed.
Owing to the absence of
Zeuner
(1
and Loose ('1961
can
be measured exactly
but it seems that the crest is of the acute
characteristic of the
grazing
in this case D. hen1itoechus.
The
are
constricted
the cristae temporales, and there is a very
middle of the occipital
crest, which is rather
darned when seen from the posterior.
with no
edges or
The
is very
and even in
projections. Even the
crest
rounded (phot. 1).
The teeth are
worn. and little can be said about their
Even the size of
teeth is
the
wear,
the Nt1) worn down below the base
dimension is reduced (phot, 3). For
18
Photo 2: The sane skull (as photo 1), seen from behind.
As can be seen from the double
teeth group
appear slightly
I ...... e-e ........... + h ............
well with our I). hemitoechus
Because of the
of the
teeth we have referred this skull
a certain caution.
_r.,,... ........ ,+,,....1
.:;1Ui'lItJlV,
crest and the size of the
although with
Deciduous teeth
Of the deciduous teeth the
crown of a virtually unworn D3 sin. is of
interest. It comes from the «Mausoleum», which
to the Crenian
clearly less so
The crown is rather
than in the
teeth
5). A strong crochet is present,
but no antecrochet or crista. The entrance of the medisinus is rather
narrow and V-shaped, with two small
closing it lingually. Such protuberances are considered typical of the permanent
M' of D. etruscus
Vialli (1956:41), but not of the deciduous teeth
of this species, where the entrance is broad and U-shaped (Guerin
and Heintz 1971 :14). Consequently the tooth must be referred to
19
Photo 3: Left upper dentition (P4_Ml_M2_M3) of the same skull (as in photo 1).
some other species. The
of the crown
D. hemitoechus, a sugestion supported
the
between the tooth in
question and the IVi2 crown discussed below.
A left maxilla with the deciduous tooth-row 0 2 - 0 4 , preserved
---------
--~~--~--~-
Photo 4: Detail of photo 3.
20
Fig. 1:
X
- Petralona, T.A. 68, 200 (76)
- D. hernitoechus. Staesche 1941
• - D. Kirchberqensis. Weimar- Ehringsdorf, Kahlke, 1975.
- D. Kirchberqensis. Taubach, Kahlke, 1977.
p3, double loqarithmic plot of length and breadth at base of crown,
~
in
comes from the top
of the «Anthropoloqical
Hall». As the teeth are embedded in the
no exact measurements can be
the 0 4 is rather damaged. The teeth are
moderately worn, and
appears that
have been of the same
hiqh-crowned type as the tooth discussed above. The entrance of the
rnedisinus of the 0 3 and [)4 is rather narrow,
the shape of the
bottom is obscured
There is no reason to doubt that
these teeth
to the same
as the D3 just discussed.
Two
of deciduous teeth have also been referred to
this species because of morphological similarity to the complete
teeth. One of these comes from the «Mausoleum». the other from Cre-
21
Fig. 2:
X
- Petralona, T.B. 1714
T.A. 68, 88 (69)
D. - D. hemitoechus, Staesche 1941
11 - D. hernitoechus. Weimar- Ehringsdorf, Kahlke, 1975.
- D. Kirchberqensis, Taubach, Kahlke. 1977.
II D. Kirchbergensis, Weimar- Ehringsdorf, Kahlke, 1975.
P,4 double logarithmic plot of length and breadth at base of crown,
# - Petralona.
Fig. 3:
X
-Petralona, T.A. 68, 219 (4'1).
T.A.58, 88 (69), possibly shortened by wear.
11 - D. hernitoechus, Staesche, 1951.
- D. Kirchberqensis, Taubach, Kahlke. 1977.
II - D. Kirchberqensis, Weimar- Ehrinqsdorf, Kahlke, 1
M2, double logarithic plot of length and breadth at base of crown.
# - Petralona,
nian
of «trench )~»o Both
are from
ximately to the
as those of the maxilla,
Permanen
worn appro-
th
there are
Photo 6: Side view of photo 5.
Photo 7: 0 2
-
0 3 of Die. cf. hemitoechus, T.B. 1538.
worn
dex, present
comes from the PeThere is one
with the roots intact. The
and is well
tralonian of trench
ectoloph shows the
pattern of D. hemitoechus
1951 :131, Guerin 1976 :
and there
no
internal cingulum. The measurements are
in table 2. As can be
smaller than the values for D. kirchberqensis.
seen, the tooth is
of D.
n thedouand it groups very well with our
ble logarithmic
1).
-----~---~---
sin.
There is a
sin. present, and a
of a
Both teeth are covered with
thin
of
both are of
the same size and
and both
Still, the right
fragment comes from the Petralonian of trench
whilst the left tooth
comes from the top
of the «Anthropoloqical Hall».
with a fragment of the maxilla,
The complete tooth is
it is rather worn and its features are mainly obscured by the stalagmite
covering. It is of the same general appearance as the p3 discussed
24
Photo 8:
p2 dex, D.cf. hemitoechus T.A. 200 (76)
above, with both sinuses
are
in table 3, a double
seen from
the
of D. hernitoechus,
Measurements
can be
Photo 9: p4 sin. D. cf. hemitoechus, T. B. 1714.
25
M2 dex, D. cf. hernitoechus,
68, 219 (41)
Photo 11: Side view of photo 1O.
26
M L.
'~I
"
A crown of a
rv1 2 comes from the Petralonian of trench
A. It is very well
and almost unworn. The measurements
are given in table 5. As can be seen, the CY,)\Nn is high, although
not
so. The double
plot
3) shows the
tooth to group well with the D.
.As it is too
hypsodont to be referred to D. etruscus,
'Mould be alternative,
there can
be any doubt that--jt is best referred to D. ct. hemitoechus.
A
vsrv similar to the tooth
discussed comes from
the same level of trench A, and is referred to the same species.
Mandible:
A right mandible comes from the Petralonian of trench A. The
teeth are all present, but so badly damaged that no measurements
can be given. The toothrovv is the permanent one, and the teeth are
rather worn. The outer walls of the anterior crescents of the two posterior premolars show the flat shape characteristic of D. hemitoechus.
(Staesche 1941 : 131). I n the other teeth this diagnostic part is unfortu nately lost.
_ . _ . - ~ - - - - _ . - - - - ~ ~ ~ - _ . _ - - ~ " - - - - _ . _ -.
-~-
Photo 12. Right lower dentition (P3_P4_Ml) of D. cf. hemitoechus, 68,200 (43).
27
Post-era
ain
etruscus.
to supdiscussed
referred to D.
the one bone that
we
the measurements fit
the
femur and
show certain
«etruscus-Iike» features. VVhE;ther this should bs taken as an indication of the presence
etruscus. or
as a local trend within
the
Vile do not
such features are characteristic of the
D. hemitoechus. Further excavations may throw
more
on
Photo 13: Left Radius D. cf. hemitoechus,
28
I:.ep. 29-7-77, prox-part.
Radius~
been
broken away,
r~-::H"Y'i"::)nl!""''''il
The bone
of interest. The articulation
sorns features
ulna is situated near the centre
of the
of D.
tion at the
border of the
a character
but not of D. etruscus. which has the articula31li 956
. One
may
presume, that D. hernitoechus
resemble each other in
from D.
has the characteristically
D. hernitoechus from Weimerdorf as
Kahlke (1
. ( n that
the above mentioned articulation has the central
of the Pebetween the internal and external
tralona
parts of the articulation
the humerus is approximately 0.80,
and differs from the lower value of the more «assvrnmetrical» D.
etruscus, given as 0.65
Vialli (1956:42).
Photo 14: View from top of photo 13 ..
29
U I n a.
The
of a right ulna comes from the Petralonian
of trench
Measurements are given in table 7. The ratio between
showing the bone
and width of the joint - surface is
to be akin to triose of. D. hemitoechus and D. kirchbergensis in this
this
respect, at least
to our data.
do not
ratio is constant or not, but presuming that it is, the fragment in question can
referred to D. cf, hemitoechus with some caution.
Photo 15: Sigmoid cavity of right Ulna of D. cf, hemitoechus. T.A. 68, 220.
Femur:
The distal part of a right femur comes from the Petralonian
of trench A. The bone is preserved distally of the third trochanter,
with the exception of the outer condyle, which has been broken.
On the whole the bone seems rather grecile, and is perhaps suggestive
of the D. etruscus-type of femur. Still, it is bigger than the femora
of the big
of Voigtstedt (see table 9), and even slightly
bigger than-the-extremely big fonn from Hundsheirn (Toula 1902:58),
D-:-etruscus
30
Photo 16: Fraqment of
which it does
the distal
tr\V'\2 1Y't"",'l.
dext, Femur of D.cf. nerrutoecnus
75
the
"C'·r,
is best
ing D. cf.
Tibia:
There are three finds of rhinoceros tibia
Crenian of trench
is a
of which comes from the Petralonian
other from a
proximal and a distal one.
The
bone is
"veil
tuberosity has been broken as well as the lateral
is slightly
where the fibula
condition.
Otherwise it is in
This bone
very short and
of the
of tibia of
toechus.
it is smaller than
representatives of these
In fact the
the
one
the
a
bone
.--------_._----_._---------------_ .. _-~-
31
Photo 1
Tibia dext, of D. cf. hemitoechus, T.A. 68 (137)
Photo 18: Vievv from the distal part of photo 17.
32
markably well with those given for D. etruscus by Guerin (1972:
105). (see table 9). Also the distal joint-surtaceis apparently «etrusscold» in the presence of an inner, deep part and a broader, flatter outer one, corresponding to the «asymmetrical» astragalus of D. etruscus. Whether this feature is conclusive or not we do nor know~but
as it is repeated in the distal fragment from the Petralonian layers we
have preferred not to put too much store by it.
The distal fragment comes, as mentioned, from the Petralonian
of trench fthlt is well preserved, with the distal end of the fibula still
in situ. In shape as well as size it is very similar to the distal end of the
bone just discussed.
The proximal fragment comes from a part of the cave where the
layers have been disturbed during previous excavations, and its stratigraphical position is not known exactly. It is, however, covered with
stalagmite that has obviously been part of the cave floor. This stalagmite is rather thick, and makes it impossible to measure the bone or
discuss its morphology in any detail. Under the stalagmite covering
the bone appears to be well preserved.
Photo 19: Tibia dext, of D. ct. hernitoechus. distal view, T.A. 68, 223.
33
Calcaneum:
A small and stocky calcaneum, perfectly preserved, comes from
the Petralonian of trench A. It is remarkably similar to the one described and pictured in Guerin (1973:66 and pl. 10), and by him assigned to D. hemitoechus. The sustentaculum tali is rather short
and sturdy (although less so than in D. kirchbergensis), and runs
------------almost (but not quite) perpendicular to the axis of the corpus. Seen
from the side the distance between the anteriorly projecting «lip»
or «bill» of the tuber and the posterior part of the facies articularis
posterior is very short. The facies articularis cuboidea is strongly concave, and runs backwards along the internal side of the bone. The
facies articularis media is concave, and separated by a gap from the
narrow facies articularis anterior.
This bone does also, as a matter of fact, strongly resemble the
calcaneum of D. etruscus from Hundsheim as pictured in Toula (1902:
-------Taf. XI).
However, the measurements fit very well with Guerin's (table
10), and the morphology is identical. Therefore we have referred this
bone to D. cf. hemitoechus. (The fact that it resembles the bone from
Hundsheim does, perhaps, indicate that the resemblance between
the femora from Hundsheim and Pertalona is of the same nature).
Photo 20: Calcaneum of D. cf. hemitoechus, T.A. 68, 120.
34
Photo 21: Calcaneum. D. cf, hemitoechus, T.A. 68, 120.
Photo 22: Calcaneum sin. D.. cf. hernitoechus, T.A. 68, 120.
S pee i fie a II y u n d e t e r rn i ned r h i n 0 C e r 0 S material:
D2 dex (7) l~. A. 68,200 (74), Petralonian of trench A, very worn
and somewhat damaged.
diaphyse of left humerus of juvenile, 0 2 9 T.A. 18.9.75, very small,
with marked costal and lateral curvatures, Crenian of trench A.
-
distal
of
probably mt II dex, T.A. 10.7.76
very small, Petralonian of trench A.
35
TABLES
1 . 0 3 , comparative measurements in mrn'.
O. cf. hemitoechus
Petralona M 77 542
1 . length
2. breadth
3. height
38.7
49.5
44.2
O. etruscus Sussenborn
Kahlke 1969: 669 ff.
1.
2.
38.4
41 .7
O. etruscus Voigtstedt, Mauer
Mosbach. Kahlke 1965 :498ff,
Wurm 1912:19.
MEAN
N
MIN
MAX
1.
2.
38.9
44.5
5
5
37
42
42
50
O. kirchbergensis Taubach
Kahlke 1977 : 307
1.
2.
41 .5
47.8
43.2
O. kirchbergensis WeimarEhringsdorf. Kahlke 1975:340
1.
2.
43.6
47.8
39.8
37.4
46.1
43.9
38.3
39.8
2. p3, comparative measurements in mm.
O. cf. hemitoechus
Petralona T.A. 68 200 (76)
O. hemitoechus
Kahlke 1975:372, Staesche 1941
O. etruscus Silssenborn
Kahlke 1969:675
D. kirchbergensis WeimarEhringsdorf. Kahlke 1975 : 343
1.
2.
40.0
50.8
MEAN
N
1.
2.
36.95
49.78
11
10
MEAN
N
MIN
MAX
1.
2.
39.86
50.15
14
13
36.8
47.9
49.6
53.8
MEAN
N
MIN
MAX
1.
44.26
56.95
22
10
40.0
53.4
50.1
59.8
2
1) length
breadth
height
36
MIN
MAX
34
45
39.9
55.2
length of ectoloph at base of crown (in Kahlke max. length at base
of crown)
maximum breadth at base of crown
= maximum height of ectoloph
3. p4, comparative measurements in mm.
D. cf. hemitoechus
Petralona
1.
2.
TB 1714 TA 68 88 (69)
44.3 c. 40
63.4
57.4
----
D. hemitoechus
Kahlke 1975: 372, Staesche 1941
D. etruscus Sussenborn
Kahlke 1969 : 675
D. kirchbergensis Weimar
Ehringsdorf. Kahlke 1975:343.
4.
MIN
c.34
53
MAX
44.4
60.09
1.
2.
MEAN
40.40
56.05
N
10
10
1.
2.
MEAN
42.30
56.17
N
11
10
MIN
40.2
53.2
MAX
45.1
60.0
1.
2.
MEAN
43.84
65.71
N
21
11
MIN
42.4
MAX
52.2
70.2
6~2.2
M2, comparative measurements in mm
D. cf. hemitoechus
Petralona
1.
2.
3.
TA 68 219 (41) TA 68 88 69
51 .2
(c. 48) (c. 49)
60.9
67.2
66.1
62.7
dex.
sin.
----_._---~
D. hemitoechus Heppenloch,
Cannstatt, Staesche 1941
D. etruscus Sussenborn
Kahlke 1969:676
D. kirchbergensis WeimarEhringsdorf. Kahlke 1975:346
MEAN
1 . 51 .1
62.1
2.
N
8
8
MIN
44
60
MAX
56
65
1.
2.
MEAN
49.67
58.47
N
21
17
MIN
43.3
58.1
MAX
54.3
65.2
1.
2.
MEAN
64.41
68.24
N
23
15
MIN
60.5
62.5
MAX
67.3
72.8
37
5. M3, comparative measurements in rnm
D. cf. hemitoechus
Petralona T.A. 68 88 (69)
dex.
2.
D. hemitoechus Heppenloch,
Cannstatt, Staesche 1941.
D. etruscus Sussenborn
Kahlke 1969:676
D. Kirchbergensis WeimarEhrinqsdorf. Kahlke 1975 : 346.
sin.
61 .1
59.4
62.2 c.GO
1.
MEAN
N
MIN
MAX
1.
2.
59.7
56.0
9
54
10
51
64.5
61
MEAN
53.54
N
1.
MIN
50.8
2.
50.51
1.
MEAN
66.82
58.05
2.
10
7
N
20
18
MAX
47.6
56.7
53.2
MIN
61 .9
52.1
75.4
65.0
MIN
104.3
100.6
71 .8
114.1
103.0
83.8
MAX
6. Radius, comparative measurements in mm.
D. cf. hemitoechus Petralona Sph. 27.7.77
1 . max. breadth of proximal epiphvse
c. 98
2. breadth of prox. joint-surface
c. 95
3. longitudinal diam. of prox. epiph.
c. 70
MEAN
D. hemitoechus Weimar- Ehringsdorf
Kahlke 1975:378
1 . 108.7
2. 101 .8
3,
77.
D. etruscus Voigtstedt
Kahlke 1965 : 459, 471, [j05
88
4
99.5
N
6
6
94.4
71 .1
5
68.0
MEAN
1 . 114.7
2. 108.5
3. 76.9
N
6
6
MIN
109,8
104.1
6
71 .8
MEAN
1 . 104.4
2.
3.
D. kirchbergensis Taubach
Kahlke 1997 : 330
N
3
3
MIN
98.2
MAX
MAX
110.8
104.5
81 .3
MAX
118.6
114.0
83.8
7. Ulna, comparative measurements in mm.
---_._----------_._-------------------_.,--- ----D. cf. hemitoechus Petralona T.A. 68 (220)
c. 71
c. 81
1. height of sigmoid cavity
2. breadth of sigmoid cavity
3. 1:2
D. hemitoechus Weirnar- Ehringsdorf.
Kahlke 1975 : 378
72.7
80.3
0.905
1.
2.
3.
D. etruscus Voigtsteadt
Kahlke 1965: 459, 475, 505, 506
D. kirchbergensis Taubach
Kahlke 1977: 330 ft.
MEAN
N
MIN
MAX
3.
66.8
84.9
0.787
4
4
4
65.0
83.5
0.769
68.0
87.2
0.805
1.
MEAN
82.2
N
5
95.8
5
5
1.
2.
2.
3.
8. Femur,
0 . 88
c.
0.858
MAX
MIN
72.3
84.5
101 .8
106.5
0.964
0.750
comparative measurements in mm.
D. cf. hemitoechus Petralona 0 69
1. max. longitudinal diarn, of dist.
epiph.
2. min. breadth of diaphyse
3. min. long. diam. of diaphyse
4. breadth of trochlea patellaris
TA 20.9.75
c. 150
71 .6
46)
c. 75
(c.
---_._--_._--------------~---_._----_._------
D. hemitoechus Botro Maspino,
IIford. Azzaroli 1961 :31
2.
73
70
--------
D.
etruscus Voigtstedt
Kahlke 1965 : 464, 482
MEAN
N
MIN
MAX
1 . 138.4
2. 66.9
3. 48.4
4. 81 .8
4
2
2
2
135.4
66.7
48.3
81 .5
141 .5
67.0
48.5
82.0
------
D.
etruscus Hundsheim
Toula 1902 : 58
1 . 142
1.
74
D. etruscus Val d'Arno
VA 612 Basel, Nat. Hist. Mus.
2.
3.
54.1
35.7
D. kirchbergensis Taubach
Kahlke 1977:341
2.
78.3
3.
49.3
_.._ --_. __
. _ . _ - - _ . _ . _ ~
39
9. Tibia, comparative measurernents in min
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
cf. hemitoechus Petralona TA 68 (137)
Petro TA 68 (223)
maximum length
350
lateral length
310
proximal breadth
c. 110
breadth of prox. joint-surface
c. 105
minimum breadth of diaphyse
c. 58
distal breadth
97 . 0
101 . 5
breadth of distal joint-surface
75.0
75.0
min. long. diam. of diaphyse
48.1
long. diam. of epiph.
69.4
70.2
long. diam. of dist. joint-surface c. 51
52.1
D. hemitoechus Weimar- Ehringsdorf
Kahlke 1975 : 380
D. etruscus Voigtstedt
Kahlke 1965:465, 482,
D. etruscus
Guerin 1972
: 105
6. 111.3
7.
8.
9.
10.
90.4
80.464.8
MEAN
509
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
401.2
10.
58.0
333.2.
127.7
124.3
59.3
103.3
82.1
51.6
75.4
N
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
MIN
390.5
326.0
121 .0
MAX
428.0
352.5
77.2
50.6
72.8
136.5
134.0
63.9
105.5
86.3
54.5
78.8
55.8
61 .4
120.5
56.0
101 .5
MEAN
1. 362.67
N
12
MIN
MAX
348
389
2.
3. 111.10
4.
10
102
115
5.
6.
53.95
96.75
15
16
43.5
52.27
66.26
15
16
43
81
61 .5
105
7.
8.
9.
10.
40
58
63
72
Cont.
---------------
D. kirchbergensis Taubach
Kahlke 1977 : 344.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
MEAN
369.9
327.4
122.5
116.3
60.3
106.4
87.4
55.3
79.0
63.0
MIN
355.0
320.4
MAX
384.4
334.4
1
2
6
6
3
6
6
57.8
98.2
81 .2
53.3
74.5
59.8
62.8
116.2
97.3
57.5
86.1
67.2
N
12
11
13
10
MIN
113.5
46
68.5
54
MAX
143
60
85
82
N
2
2
1
10. Calcaneum, comparative measurements in mm.
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
cf. hemitoechus Petralona TA 68 (120)
max. length.
123.6
breadth at tuber calcis
52.3
max breadth.
82.9
long diam. at tuber calcis
61 .4
D. hemitoechus
Guerin 1973: 67
MEAN
1 . 125.50
2. 52.82
3. 76.46
4. 66
135.5
56.3
70.8
73.8
D. hemitoechus Weimar- Ehringsdorf 1 . 131 .8
Kahlke 1975:381
48.9
2.
3. 68.6
4. 62.3
D. etruscus Voigtstedt
Kahlke 1965: 490, 510
MEAN
1 . 130.5
2. 53.3
3. 84.5
4. 74.1
N
4
5
4
5
MIN
123.6
51 .2
78.3
72.2
MAX
137.2
55.8
87.8
76.8
------
D. etruscus Val d'Arno
Basel Nat. Hist. Mus.
VA
1 . 117.0
2. 41 .3
3. 71.8
4. 61 .3
D. kirchbergensis Taubach
Kahlke 1977 : 346
MEAN
1 . 141 .6
2.
58.1
3. 91.6
4. 73.0
612
N
5
5
5
5
VA 2300 VA215
118.4 123.5
43.4
45.9
c.64
c .71
64.6 c.61
MIN
130.8
54.0
83.1
68.3
MAX
146.7
61 .2
97.0
78.8
41
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AZZAROLI A. (1961): Validita della specie Rhinoceros hemitoechus Falconeri.
Paleontographica Italica vol. LVI p. 21 - 34, Pisa.
FALCONER H. (1868): On the European Pliocene and Post-Pliocene species
of the genus Rhinoceros. Paleont. Mem. 2, p, 309 - 403, London.
GUERIN C. (1972):LfMnouvelle espece de rhinoceros (Mammalia, Perissodactyla) a Vialette (Haute- Loire, France) et dans d'autres gisements du Villafranchien inferieur european: Dicerorhinus jeanvireti n.sp. Docum. lab.
Geol, Sci. Lyon, 49, p, 53 - 150, Lyon.
GUERIN, C. (1973): Le trois especes de rhinoceros (Mammalia, Perissodactyla)
du gisement pleistocene moyen des abimes de la Fage a Noailles (Correze),
Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. II, p, 55 - 84, Lyon.
GU ERIN C. (1976): Les Perissodactvles: Rhinocerotides. La Prehistoire Francaise,
Tome I, H. de Lumley, dir., Nice.
GUERIN C. and E. HEINTZ (1971): Dicerorhinus etruscus (Falconer 1859), Rhinocerotidae, Mammalia, du Villafranchien de La Puebla de Valverde (Teruel,
Espagne). Bull. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. 2, 18, 22pp., Paris.
KAH LKE H. D. (1965): Die Rhinocerotiden- Reste aus den Tonen von Voigtstadt
in Thurinqen. Palaont, Abh., Abt. A, II, 2/3 p. 452 - 518, Berlin.
KAHLKE H. D. (1969): Die Rhinocerotiden-Reste aus den Kiesen von Sussenborn bei Weimar. Palaont. Abh., Abt. A, III, 3/4, p. 666 - 708, Berlin.
KAH LKE H. D. (1975): Die Rinocerotiden- Reste aus den Travertinen von WeimarEhringsdorf. Abh. zentr. geol. Inst. 23, p. 337 - 397, Berlin.
KAH LKE H. D. (1977): Die Rhinocerotiden- Reste aus den Travertinen von Taubach. Ouartarpalaontoloqie 2, p. 305 - 359, Berlin.
KURTEN B. and A.N. POULIANOS (1977): New Stratigraphic and Faunal Material from Petralona Cave. Anthropos 4, 1 - 2, p. 47 - 130, Athens.
KRETZOJ M. (1942): Bemerkungen zur System der Nachrniozanen Nashorn-Gattungen. F61dtany K6z16ny 72, 4/11, p. 309 - 318, Budapest.
KRETZOI M. (1977): The Fauna of Small Vertebrates of the Middle Pleistocene
at Petralona. Anthropos 4, 1 - 2, p, 131 - 143, Athens.
LOOSE H. (1961): Dicerorhinus hemitoechus in the Netherlands. -Proc. Kon.
Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam (B) 64, p. 41 - 46, Amsterdam.
POULIANOS A.N. (1971): Petralona - A Middle Pleistocene cave in Greece.
ARCHAEOLOGY, vol. 24, No 1 (January) 6 - 11.
POULIANOS A.N. (1977): Stratigraphy and age of the Petralonian Archanthropus.
ANTHROPOS, v. 4, No 1 - 2, January-April, 37 - 46.
STAESCH E K. (1941): Nash6rner der Gattung Dicerorhinus aus dem Diluvium
Wurttembergs. Abh. Reichst. Bodenf. NF 200, 148p~Berlin.
TOULA F. (1902): Das Nashorn von Hundsheim. Rhinoceros (Ceratorhinus
Osborn) hundsheimensis nov. form. Abh. geol. Reichsanst. Wien 19, 1 p, 1-92.
VIALLI V. (1956) :sur-rinoceronte e relefante dei livelli superiori della serie lacustro di Leffe (Bergamo). Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Milano XII 1, 72 pp.
WU RM A. (1912): Uber Rhinoceros etruscus Falc. von Mauer an der Eisenz (bei
Heidelberg). Verh. naturhist. med. Vera Heidelberg, NF 12, 1 - 62, Heidelberg.
42
ZEUNER F.E. (1934): Die Beziehungen zwischen Schadelforrn und Lebenswiese
bei den rezenten und fossilen Nash6rnen. Ber. naturf. Ges. Freiburg i Br. 34,
p, 21-80, Freiburg.
nEPIAH'I'H
01 PINOKEPOI TH:E :EnHAIA:E TnN nETPAAnNnN
Tffiv'MICHAEL FORTELIUS Kai NIKOY A. nOYAIANOY
C:H JlQVJr<)O,
'OITWC;
el0'QfJle
KaJ.
0'
o.A1\a apHpa, ,6011:8lole1 mI)' xpo-
VOAOYlloll TtOV OTpWf)lO'IWV.
To KUplO 1£150<:; 'IWIV plVOKepWV rroo (OUO'QV OT11V rrepioxf yupro anD 'Ii) :OITllA10,KOl rtou Q,ITOifeAOU'OQV aVTl\K:efpievo (){UV'llYlOU yl<l
TODIC; apIXiQvH!PWiJUOUC;, elva! 0 Dicerorhinus hemitoechus falconeri. T'D
elooc; au,'Io (ouole Ka:Tu rco ~Q'IWTepO Meoo TIAeIOT6KoIVO, (KjQ[ OTIC;
otic ouo IKupllec rrep'16oouc; - 'Ii}V KPI1;V£,lU KaI Ilcrpcxdrveic - rtou
olaKpfvoupe OTil OIT11AHI. Elvci OU(p'GH~ O'lIQ CPO P S T.l KO la,ITO TO ei6o<; D.
hemitoechus aretinus, nOD (ouoe KQI'IU TO 'A vrisrepo TIAeI01ToKQ,lVO, i<JQI
rrAlloHi(el IToAD 10 D. etruscus, nOD (ouoe 010 Kuuoreoo TIA,eloToI
KalVO.
43