Scholarlink

<p>The taxonomy of Eurasian rhinoceroses has long been complicated by extensive homoplasy, incomplete fossil records, and shifting diagnostic criteria, particularly affecting the genera <i>Dicerorhinus</i>, <i>Dihoplus</i>, <i>Pliorhinus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros</i>, and <i>Stephanorhinus</i>. Rhinocerotid material from the Late Pliocene locality of Kvabebi (Georgia), previously referred to <i>Pliorhinus miguelcrusafonti</i>, is re-evaluated here using an expanded morphological dataset and phylogenetic analyses. The results consistently recover the Kvabebi rhinoceros as a distinct dicerorhinine lineage positioned close to the divergence between <i>Coelodonta</i> and <i>Stephanorhinus</i>. On the basis of its unique combination of cranial, dental, and postcranial characters, and its stable phylogenetic placement outside both <i>Coelodonta</i> and <i>Stephanorhinus</i>, the Kvabebi material is provisionally assigned to <i>Scythicorhinus vekuai</i> (Tsiskarishvili, 1987) gen. nov. et comb. nov. Although alternative placements within the early <i>Coelodonta–Stephanorhinus</i> radiation cannot be statistically rejected, a close relationship with <i>Stephanorhinus miguelcrusafonti</i> is strongly unsupported. Two fragmentary maxillae from Berehove (Crimea, Ukraine) are also examined and are tentatively referred to <i>Scythicorhinus vekuai</i>, pending the discovery of more diagnostic material. Discrete-character and morphometric analyses indicate that both the Kvabebi and Berehove rhinoceroses fall outside the observed morphological variation of <i>Coelodonta</i> and <i>Stephanorhinus</i>, supporting their distinction at the generic level, albeit provisionally given the limited and partially worn material. The results further support rejection of <i>Pliorhinus</i> as a valid genus. Overall, this study refines the systematic framework of late Neogene rhinocerotids and underscores the importance of expanded comparative datasets for resolving evolutionary relationships within this highly homoplastic group.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Scythicorhinus vekuai gen. nov. et comb. nov. (Mammalia, Rhinocerotidae) from the Pliocene of Georgia and its implications for the early evolution of Coelodonta and Stephanorhinus

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月14日

查看全文
  • Oleksandr Kovalchuk,
  • Antonio Borrani,
  • Paweł Mackiewicz,
  • Zoltán Barkaszi,
  • Chiara Capalbo,
  • Svitozar Davydenko,
  • Anastasiia Dubikovska,
  • Urszula Ratajczak-Skrzatek,
  • Maxim Sinitsa,
  • Krzysztof Stefaniak,
  • Maciej T. Krajcarz,
  • Paul P. A. Mazza

摘要

The taxonomy of Eurasian rhinoceroses has long been complicated by extensive homoplasy, incomplete fossil records, and shifting diagnostic criteria, particularly affecting the genera Dicerorhinus, Dihoplus, Pliorhinus, Rhinoceros, and Stephanorhinus. Rhinocerotid material from the Late Pliocene locality of Kvabebi (Georgia), previously referred to Pliorhinus miguelcrusafonti, is re-evaluated here using an expanded morphological dataset and phylogenetic analyses. The results consistently recover the Kvabebi rhinoceros as a distinct dicerorhinine lineage positioned close to the divergence between Coelodonta and Stephanorhinus. On the basis of its unique combination of cranial, dental, and postcranial characters, and its stable phylogenetic placement outside both Coelodonta and Stephanorhinus, the Kvabebi material is provisionally assigned to Scythicorhinus vekuai (Tsiskarishvili, 1987) gen. nov. et comb. nov. Although alternative placements within the early Coelodonta–Stephanorhinus radiation cannot be statistically rejected, a close relationship with Stephanorhinus miguelcrusafonti is strongly unsupported. Two fragmentary maxillae from Berehove (Crimea, Ukraine) are also examined and are tentatively referred to Scythicorhinus vekuai, pending the discovery of more diagnostic material. Discrete-character and morphometric analyses indicate that both the Kvabebi and Berehove rhinoceroses fall outside the observed morphological variation of Coelodonta and Stephanorhinus, supporting their distinction at the generic level, albeit provisionally given the limited and partially worn material. The results further support rejection of Pliorhinus as a valid genus. Overall, this study refines the systematic framework of late Neogene rhinocerotids and underscores the importance of expanded comparative datasets for resolving evolutionary relationships within this highly homoplastic group.