Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 31/2. (2011)
Paleontology
Vlad A. CODREA, Alexandra SOLOMON Megaloceros giganteus (Blumenbach, 1803) Plate I: Figs. 1-3 A single left mandible horizontal branch with cheek teeth, belonging to a mature individual is available for study. Before burial, the bone was carried on rather long distance, being rolled and broken: the ascending branch, the angular process and the symphisis are all missing. Under the premolar series, the bone is longitudinally severely broken too. The whole series of cheek teeth is adequately preserved, exposing moderate to advanced tooth wear. The single premolar more damaged is p2, with the mesial half of crown broken. The labial enamel tooth wall is missing in p2, p3 (the anterior lobe, on outer mesial side only) and ml (a small portion of anterior lobe in same area). All molars are devoid of the Palaeomeryx fold. The ectostylids are well expressed in all molars. In m3, apart the anterior ectosylid situated between the protoconid and hypoconide, a vestigial remain could document the existence of a second ectostylid, located post-hypoconide. Only weak cingulum can be observed on lateral sides of the cheek teeth, mainly on lingual ones of the molars. The Seleuj specimen has medium-sized teeth, according the comparative measurements reported by Croitor (2008) for different Megaloceros localities from Europe (Fig. 2). Even estimated - due to damages occurred to p2 one may appreciate that the tooth row length has intermediary position among the giant deer sample from Dublin, but seems to be somewhat longer that Duruitoarea Veche (Republic of Moldova). The same concerns p2 vs. ml length, but the estimated premolar series length is close to Duruitoarea Veche. Croitor considered this character as a primitive condition. However, in Crotor’s mentioned sample, this difference concerns mainly the upper teeth, being less expressed in the lower ones. Therefore, as we are dealing with just a single specimen, it would too speculative to consider it as one bearing primitive characters. Another peculiar feature in our fossil is the value of the mandible thickness (Fig. 3). Shearing Lister’s (1994) opinion, Croitor (2008) related this character to the well expressed sexual dimorphism, weak mandible pachyostosis belonging to females, while males would have more robust mandibles. Following this reasoning, one can relate the Seleu§ specimen to a male. Measurements (mm) of the left giant deer mandible from Seleujul Mare. Length p2-m3: 165.0 (estimated); length p2-p4: 61.0 (estimated); length ml-m3: 104.0; mandibular thickness at m3: 39.0; premolar/molar ratio: 0.59; p3: length - 23.5; breadth - 15.7; p4: length - 24.0; breadth - 17.5; ml: length - 27.5; breadth - 20.4; m2: length - 33.4; breadth - 22.0; m3: length — 43.0; breadth — 22.0. Discussions Aaris-Sorensen and Liljegren (2004) and Stuart et al. (2004) showed that in Europe the giant deer became extinct before the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, but recorded a longer survival in Holocene, in Asia. In Romania there is a similar tendency, the oldest reports of the giant deer in Romania being in Riss/Saale as in Bodoc-3 in southeastern Transylvania (Rädulescu and Samson, 1985), followed by more frequent finds in the next glacial (Würm/ Weichsel) (e.g. Koch, 1876, 1891, 1900; Szentpétery, 1911; Jurcsák, 1974; Rädulescu and Samson, 1985). However, an overview on the giant deer in Transylvania and in whole Romania is still missing. The 19th century findings are usually fortuitous, completely devoid or extremely poor in taphonomic details and based on poor stratigraphy. The subsequent ones are in the majority of cases in same situation excepting rare cases, as the ones from Bärsei Basin in southeastern Transylvania. 104
