Myocricetodon cf. ouaichi Jaeger, 1977

Myocricetodon cf. ouaichi Jaeger, 1977

Fig. 4 G – I View Figure 4

Material and measurements.

One left M 1 (L: 1.66; W: 0.93) ( IPS-PAM 207-02 ); one left M 1 (L: 1.57; W: 0.95) ( IPS-PAM 207-03 ); one right m 1 (L: 1.55; W: 1.00) ( IPS-PAM 207-13 ).

Description.

M 1 (Fig. 4 G, H View Figure 4 ). A low cingulum is present on the anterior wall of both teeth. The anterocone is composed of two alternating lobes, separated by a groove. The anterior arm of the protocone is connected to the labial lobe of the anterocone. The posterior wall of the protocone is connected to the lingual wall of the paracone. A well-developed, isolated lingual accessory cuspule is present in one of the teeth (Fig. 4 G View Figure 4 ) but absent in the other (Fig. 4 H View Figure 4 ). The anterior arm of the hypocone is connected directly to the posterior wall of the paracone in one case ( IPS-PAM 207-02 ), while in the other tooth the hypocone and paracone are isolated ( IPS-PAM 207-03 ). The hypocone is connected posteriorly to the metacone.

m 1 (Fig. 4 I View Figure 4 ). Although broken, it appears that the anteroconid was wide. A well-developed lingual anterolophid is present. The protoconid is directly connected to the metaconid. There is no longitudinal ridge, the sinusid being connected to the mesosinusid, separating the protoconid from the entoconid. The hypoconid and entoconid are directly connected. A small, rounded posterolophid is present.

Remarks.

The sample of Myocricetodon from PAM 207 was preliminarily assigned to Myocricetodon cf. afoudensis . New comparisons reveal that the studied sample shows larger dimensions than those of this species ( Benammi 2001). Similarly, the studied teeth are larger than those of Myocricetodon jaegeri (see Benammi 2001). In contrast, the M 1 fits both in size and morphology with Myocricetodon seboui from Oued Zra and Guefait- 1 ( Jaeger 1977; Agustí et al. 2023), and Myocricetodon ouaichi from Tafna 2 ( Mahboubi et al. 2015). The dimensions of the m 1 fall within the upper limit of variability of M. seboui and match the size of M. ouaichi . Although fragmented, the anteroconid of the m 1 exhibits a more complex morphology than the small, simple, rounded anteroconid of M. seboui . In contrast, it matches the wider anteroconid of M. ouaichi , described for the first time by Coiffait-Martin (1991), which has a large anteroconid and a well-developed labial anterolophid.