4.1 Article

Fossil squamate faunas from the Neogene of Hambach (northwestern Germany)

期刊

PALAEOBIODIVERSITY AND PALAEOENVIRONMENTS
卷 97, 期 2, 页码 329-354

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s12549-016-0252-1

关键词

Lizards; Snakes; Miocene; Pliocene; Lower Rhine Basin

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 350, Mu 1760/7-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fossil squamate faunas from the Hambach lignite mine are described here for the first time. The material comes from two stratigraphic levels-the older, Hambach 6C (MN 5), is dated to the middle Miocene, whereas the younger sites Hambach 11 and 13 are dated to late Pliocene (MN 16). Although fragmentary, the Hambach 6C material reveals a diversity of squamates in a particularly interesting period-the beginning of the middle Miocene. The chamaeleonid material consists of a squamosal and the jaw fragments. The squamosal is a previously unknown element in European fossil chameleons and it is tentatively allocated here to Chamaeleo aff. andrusovi. This clade is very important as a climatic indicator at the beginning of the middle Miocene in central Europe because the lower mean annual temperature limit for chameleons is 17.4 A degrees C. In addition to the chamaeleonid, two types of lacertid lizards are recognised based on the preserved morphology. The anguid material is allocated to Pseudopus cf. ahnikoviensis. This material forms the youngest record of this taxon. Additional anguid material is attributed to Pseudopus sp. and Anguidae indet. Snake fauna here consists of the following taxa: Eoanilius, Bavarioboa, cf. Falseryx, Coluber, Texasophis, Telescopus, Natrix, cf. Naja and Vipera. Hambach 6C is the geologically youngest fossil site yielding remains of Eoanilius, possibly also youngest Falseryx (cf. Falseryx). Although the Hambach 11 and 13 upper Pliocene (MN 16) sites exhibit low palaeodiversity, there is a large assemblage of Pseudopus cf. pannonicus. Natrix and Colubrinae indet. are identified in the snake population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据