Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments

, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 495–509 | Cite as

New Latonia (Amphibia: Alytidae) from the late Miocene of northern Caucasus (Russia)

  • Elena SyromyatnikovaEmail author
  • Zbyněk Roček
Original Paper


A new species of Latonia, based on isolated cranial and postcranial bones from the late Miocene of the Volchaya Balka locality (early Turolian, MN 11) in N Caucasus, represents the easternmost hitherto known Latonia population and the first well-preserved and unambiguous record of Latonia in Russia. It belongs among those species of Latonia that have smooth maxillae and moderately sculptured frontoparietal. Although Latonia is a common anuran in the fossil record of Europe from the Oligocene to Recent, its fragmentary nature (both articulated skeletons and disarticulated bones) prevents reliable taxonomic conclusions. This is why species-specific diagnostic characters should be verified in order to confirm validity of currently recognised species.


Latonia Osteology Anura Alytidae Late Miocene Russia 



We would like to express our thanks to fellow members of the expeditions to the Volchaya Balka locality for collecting specimens, assistance in the field, and collaboration: V.V. Titov and S.V. Kurshakov (Institute of Arid Zones, Rostov-on-Don, Russia); A.S. Tesakov and P.D. Frolov (Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia); N.V. Volkova (Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia); A.A. Lissovsky, E.V. Obolenskaya and S.A. Tesakov (Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia); and I.A. Kazanov (Belaya Kalitva Polytechnic Technical School, Belaya Kalitva, Russia). We are greatly indebted to the late J.-C. Rage (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) for providing literature and additional information about L. ragei, to R. Biton (National Natural History Collections, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel) and S. Gafny (Ruppin Academic Center, School of Marine Sciences, Michmoret, Israel) for providing literature and additional information about L. nigriventer; S. van de Velde, D. van der Marel, A. Speksnijder, R. Langelaan (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands), A. Schulp, J. Willem Pette, and H. Voogd (Teylers Museum, Haarlem, The Netherlands) for providing a CT scan of L. seyfriedi (specimen TMH 8438 from Teylers Museum, The Netherlands). We are grateful to both reviewers, Amy Henrici (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, USA) and Borja Sanchiz (The National Museum of Natural Sciences, Spain), for their useful comments and suggestions. We also thank R. Rakitov (Borissiak Paleontological Institute RAS, Moscow) for helping us to take scanning electron image. ES was supported by the Russian Scientific Fund № 18-74-10081 and the government theme АААА-А17-117030310017-8, ZR from the research plan of the Institute of Geology of the Czech Academy of Sciences (RVO67985831).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest:

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Bailon, S., Hossini, S., & Rage, J.-C. (2017). Les amphibiens et lepidosauriens du Cénozoïque du Maroc. In S. Zouhri (Ed.) Paléontologie des vertébrés du Maroc: état des connaissances. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France 180, 453–483.Google Scholar
  2. Biton, R., Geffen, E., Vences, M., Cohen, O., Bailon, S., Rabinovich, R., Malka, Y., Oron, T., Boistel, R., Brumfeld, V., & Gafny, S. (2013). The rediscovered Hula painted frog is a living fossil. Nature Communications, 4, 1959. Scholar
  3. Biton, R., Boistel, R., Rabinovich, R., Gafny, S., Brumfeld, V., & Bailon, S. (2016). Osteological observations on the alytid anura Latonia nigriventer with comments on functional morphology, biogeography, and evolutionary history. Journal of Morphology, 277(9), 1131–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böhme, M. (2002). Lower vertebrates (Teleostei, Amphibia, Sauria) from the Karpatian of the Korneuburg Basin: palaeoecological, environmental and palaeoclimatical implications. Beiträge Paläontologie, 27, 339–353.Google Scholar
  5. Böhme, M., & Vasilyan, D. (2014). Ectothermic vertebrates from the late Middle Miocene of Gratkorn (Austria, Styria). In M. Böhme, M. Gross, J. Prieto (Eds.) The Sarmatian vertebrate locality Gratkorn, Styrian Basin. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, 94(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  6. Bolkay, S. J. (1913). Additions to the fossil herpetology of Hungary from the Pannonian and Praeglacial periods. Mittheilungen aus dem Jahrbuche der königlichen Ungarischen geologischen Reichsanstalt, 21, 217–230.Google Scholar
  7. Böttcher, R., Heizmann, E. P. J., Rasser, M. W., & Ziegler, R. (2009). Biostratigraphy and palaeoecology of a Middle Miocene (Karpathian, MN 5) fauna from the northern margin of the North Alpine Foreland Basin (Oggenhausen 2, SW Germany). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 254, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chkhikvadze, V. M. (1988). New data on turtles of the Miocene and Pliocene of the Caucasus Piedmont. In M. F. Tertyshnikov et al. (Eds.), Animals of the Caucasus Piedmont and adjacent regions (pp. 128–139). Stavropol: Stavropol State Pedagogical Institut [In Russian].Google Scholar
  9. Delfino, M. (2002). Erpetofaune italiane del Neogene e del Quaternario. Unpublished PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Delfino, M., Gentili, S., & Kotsakis, T. (2004). The last occurrence of Latonia (Anura: Discoglossidae) and the Early Pleistocene herpetofauna of Pietrafitta (Central Italy), p. 707. In 32nd International Congress of Geology. Firenze, Italy.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, G. (1813). (3rd ed.). Moscow: Nicolai Sergeidis Vsevolzsky.Google Scholar
  12. Fitzinger, L. J. F. J. (1843). Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus. Amblyglossae. Vienna: Braumüller and Seidel.Google Scholar
  13. Friant, M. (1944). Caracteres anatomiques d’un batracien oligocene de la Limagne, le Prodiscoglossus Vertaizoni nov. gen. nov. spec. Comptes-Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, 219, 561–562.Google Scholar
  14. Gómez, R. O., & Turazzini, G. F. (2016). An overview of the ilium of anurans (Lissamphibia, Salientia), with a critical appraisal of the terminology and primary homology of main ilial features. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 36(1), e1030023. Scholar
  15. Günther, A. (1859). On sexual differences found in bones of some recent and fossil species of frogs and fishes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 3(7), 377–387.Google Scholar
  16. Hodrová, M. (1987). Lower Miocene frogs from the Dolnice locality in the Cheb Basin (Czechoslovakia). Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Geologica, 2, 97–115.Google Scholar
  17. Hossini, S. (1993). A new species of Latonia (Anura, Discoglossidae) from the lower Miocene of France. Amphibia-Reptilia, 14, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lartet, E. (1851). Notice sur la Colline de Sansan, Suivie D'une Récapitulation des Diverses Espèces d'animaux Vertébrés Fossiles, Trouvés soit à Sansan, soit dans D'autres Gisements du Terrain Tertiaire Miocène dans le Bassin Sous-Pyrénéen. Auch: J.A. Portes.Google Scholar
  19. Mendelssohn, H., & Steinitz, H. (1943). A new frog from Palestine. Copeia, 1943, 231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, H. V. (1843). Summarische Uebersicht der fossilen Wirbelthiere des Mainzer Tertiär-Beckens, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Weisenau. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 1843, 379–410.Google Scholar
  21. Rage, J.-C., & Bailon, S. (2005). Amphibians and squamate reptiles from the late early Miocene (MN 4) of Béon 1 (Montréal-du-Gers, southwestern France). Geodiversitas, 27, 413–441.Google Scholar
  22. Rage, J.-C., & Hossini, S. (2000). Les Amphibiens du Miocène moyen de Sansan. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 183, 177–217.Google Scholar
  23. Rage, J.-C., & Roček, Z. (2003). Evolution of the anuran assemblages in the Tertiary and Quaternary of Europe, in context of palaeoclimate and palaeogeography. Amphibia-Reptilia, 24, 133–167.Google Scholar
  24. Roček, Z. (1994). Taxonomy and distribution of Tertiary discoglossids (Anura) of the genus Latonia v. Meyer, 1843. Geobios, 27, 717–751.Google Scholar
  25. Roček, Z. (2013). Mesozoic and Tertiary Anura of Laurasia. In J.D. Gardner & R.L. Nydam (Eds.) Mesozoic and Cenozoic Lissamphibian and Squamate assemblages of Laurasia. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, 93(4), 397–439.Google Scholar
  26. Roček, Z., & Wuttke, M. (2010). Amphibia of Enspel (Late Oligocene, Germany). Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, 90, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanchiz, B. (1981). Nota sobre la herpetofauna miocenica de los Valles de Fuentiduena (Segovia). Estudios Geológicos, 37(5–6), 355–358.Google Scholar
  28. Sanchiz, B. (1984). Análisis filogenético de la tribu Alytini (Anura, Discoglossidae) mediante el estudio de su morfoestructura ósea. In H. Hemmer & J. A. Alcover (Eds.), Història biològica del Ferreret (pp. 61–108). Editorial Moll: Ciutat de Mallorca.Google Scholar
  29. Sanchiz, B. (1998). Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology, part 4, Salientia. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
  30. Špinar, Z. V. (1975). Miopelobates fejfari n. sp., a new representative of the family Pelobatidae (Anura) from the Miocene of Czechoslovakia. Věstník Ústředního Ústavu Geologického, 50, 41–45.Google Scholar
  31. Špinar, Z. V. (1978). Latonia kolebabi Špinar, 1976 (Amphibia) and remarks on the “genus Miopelobates”. In V. Pokorný (Ed.), Paleontologická konference 1977 (pp. 289–303). Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
  32. Syromyatnikova, E. V. (2016). Late Miocene anuran fauna from Volchaya Balka locality (north Caucasus, Russia). XIV Annual Meeting of the European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists. Haarlem; Abstract volume, 224.Google Scholar
  33. Syromyatnikova, E. V. (2017). Two pelobatid frogs from the Late Miocene of Caucasus (Russia). Palaeontologia Electronica, 20.2(36A), 1–12. Scholar
  34. Tempfer, P. M. (2005). Kobra, Waran und Gecko—Im Burgenland vor 8,7 Mio Jahren. Berichte des Institutes für Geologie und Paläontologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 10, 131.Google Scholar
  35. Tesakov, A. S., Titov, V. V., Simakova, A. N., Frolov, P. D., Syromyatnikova, E. V., Kurshakov, S. V., et al. (2017). Late Miocene (early Turolian) vertebrate faunas and associated biotic record of the northern Caucasus: geology, taxonomy, paleoenvironment, biochronology. Fossil Imprint, 73(3–4), 383–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vasilyan, D., Schneider, S., Bayraktutan, M. S., & Sen, S. (2014). Early Pleistocene freshwater communities and rodents from the Pasinler Basin (Erzurum Province, north-eastern Turkey). Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 23, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venczel, M. (2004). Middle Miocene anurans from the Carpathian Basin. Palaeontographica, Abteilung A, 271, 151–174.Google Scholar
  38. Venczel, M., & Ştiucă, E. (2008). Late middle Miocene amphibians and squamate reptiles from Tauţ, Romania. Geodiversitas, 30, 731–763.Google Scholar
  39. Vergnaud-Grazzini, C. (1966). Les Amphibiens du Miocène de Beni-Mellal. Notes du Service géologique du Maroc, 27, 43–72.Google Scholar
  40. Vergnaud-Grazzini, C. (1970). Les Amphibiens fossiles du gisement f'Arondelli. Palaeontographia Italica, 66(n. ser. 36), 47–65.Google Scholar
  41. Villa, A., Delfino, M., Luján, À. H., Almécija, S., & Alba, D. M. (2017). First record of Latonia gigantea (Anura, Alytidae) from the Iberian Peninsula. Historical Biology, 1, 12. Scholar
  42. Wettstein-Westersheimb, O. (1955). Die Fauna der miozänen Spaltenfüllung von Neudorf a.d. March ČSR. Amphibia (Anura) et Reptilia. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 164, 801–815.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Borissiak Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Laboratory of Palaeobiology, Institute of GeologyCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations