Looking at a collection of molars from Middle Pleistocene (Saalian) to Late Pleistocene (Weichselian) gravel pits of northern Germany, I found some that are clearly distinct from the usual Mammuthus primigenius teeth, especially in their somewhat larger width of enamel lamellae (around 1.8 cm). Do these rather represent the steppe mammoth (M. trogontherii) or the straight-tusked elephant (E. antiquus)? Distinction criteria?
Dear Michael,
The specimens you ask about are indeed clearly distinct from M. primigenius, but they are difficult to assign to E. antiquus or M. trogontherii, first of all because the two species are not clearly separable morphometrically (their measurements overlap), and secondly because these particular specimens are not complete.
The first two specimens (the posterior parts of upper molars) do, however show some features that suggest there is more probable they belong to E. antiquus:
- the wear figures ins the plates that are not in an advanced degree of wear. In E. antiquus, these figures show a typical "dot-dash-dot" pattern (. - .), whereas in M. trogontherii, the pattern is more likely "dash-dot-dash". Looking at the molars from your picture, a "dot-dash-dot" pattern is visible in both upper molars in the 3rd-4th and, respectively 2nd plate preserving the occlusal surface (counting from front to back).
- in the more worn plates, the middle part of the wear figure is more spaced (there is more space between the enamel crests of the same plate near the midline of the tooth). This is also a trend more common in E. antiquus.
- the enamel is quite folded, which happens more in the case of E. antiquus.
- the plates are more tightly packed in E. antiquus (the space in-between the plates, filled with cement, is not that wide). Mind you, this is quite common in all elephantids in the posterior part of the molars.
The criteria mentioned above are not absolute (they may also occur on some M. trogontherii molars), but, in my opinion, they hint towards E. antiquus.
The last molar is an extremely worn lower M3, and most of its features are not visible any more - I wouldn't venture on assigning it to any of the two Middle Pleistocene elephantids. More than that, it also shows an anomaly - one of the plates splits laterally into two (it appears as Y-shaped) - and anomalous teeth might differ a bit from typical ones.
Dear Stefan, that was quite helpful and we labelled these teeth as E. antiquus.
In the future (but rather not quite soon) the descriptive and morphometric distinction of elephant teeth from the Middle to Late Pleistocene gravel pits of the Magdeburg area might be part of a smaller paper discussing the stratigraphy (especially maximum age) of the Pleistocene mammal fauna collected here. (Would you be interested to participate?)
Without M. trogontherii there is not much palaeontological indication for an age older than early Late Pleistocene (Eemian).
Dear Michael,
If by my contribution I can help with your work, I am interested in any work involving proboscidean material.
There are of course details that need to be discussed regarding any possible cooperation - I think it's best if we discuss such matters in private, via ResearchGate messaging, or by e-mail.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India