Mammal extinctions in the Vallesian (Upper Miocene)

  • Agusti J. 
  • Moya-Sola S. 
Mesozoic/Cenozoic Events
Part of the Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences book series (LNEARTH, volume 30)


The term Vallesian was created by Crusafont (1950) to designate the first European Mammalian palaeofaunas containing the equid Hipparion, the remainder of the faunas being composed of typical elements coming from the Middle Miocene such as Micromeryx, Euprox, Sansanosmilus, Pseudaelurus, and Listriodon. Thus, the Aragonian-Vallesian boundary does not show a strong change among European Miocene mammalian faunas (Agusti et al., 1984). On the other hand, the Lower Vallesian/Upper Vallesian transition corresponds to a major biotic crisis. This boudnary is characterized by the disappearence of most of the Aragonian artiodactyl forms such as Protragocerus, Miotragocerus, Listriodon, Hyotherium, Parachleusastochoerus, etc. Among the rodents, this crisis affects the family Eomyidae and most of the cricetid and glirid species. On the other hand, a number of eastern elements appear in the area at the same time. This is the case of the suid Schizochoerus and the murid Progonomys. Other eastern forms are Tragoportax, Graecoryx, Adcrocuta, Paramachairodus, Microstonyx, etc. Most of these are typical elements of the next Mammal stage, the Turolian. Thus, whereas the Lower Vallesian fauna has a typical Aragonian composition except for Hipparion. After the Middle Vallesian event, the Upper Vallesian faunas are already largely Turolian in character. The possible factors involved in this extinction event are discussed.


Iberian Peninsula Late Miocene Middle Miocene Dominant Family Transitional Character 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agusti, J. (1982): Biozonación del neógeno continental de Cataluña mediante roedores (Mammalia). —Acta Geol. Hisp., 17 (1–2), 21–26; Barcelona.Google Scholar
  2. Agusti, J., Moya-Sola, S. & Gibert, J. (1984): Mammal distribution dynamics in the Eastern margin of the Iberian Peninsula during the Miocene. — Paleobiologie continentale, 14 (2), 33–46; Montpellier.Google Scholar
  3. Bruijn, H. de, Sondaar, P. Y. & Zachariasse, W. J. (1971): Mammalia and Foraminifera from the Neogene of Kastellios Hill (Crete), a correlation of continental and marine biozones. — Kon Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Proc. B, 74 (5), 1–22; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Calvo, J. P., Elizaga, E. Lopez, N. Robles, F. & Usera, J. (1978): El Mioceneo superior continental del Prebético externo: evolución del estrecho Nordbético. — Bol.-Geol. y Min. Esp., 89, 407–426; Madrid.Google Scholar
  5. Crusafont, M. (1950): La cuestión del llamado Meótico español. — Arrahona, 1, 3–9; Sabadell.Google Scholar
  6. Jaeger, J. J. (1977): Les Rongeurs du Miocène moyen et supérieur du Maghreb. — Palaeovertebrata, 8 (1), 166 pp; Montpellier.Google Scholar
  7. Jung, W. & Mayr, H. (1980): Neure Befunde zur Biostratigraphie der Oberen Süsswassermolasse Süddeutschlands und ihre palökologische Deutung. — Mitt. bayer. Staatsslg. Paläont. hist. Geol., 20, 159–173; München.Google Scholar
  8. Lopez, N., Agusti, J., Cabrera, L., Calvo, J. P., Civis, J., Corrochano, A., Daams, R., Diaz, M., Elizaga, E., Hoyos, M., Martinez, J., Morales, J., Protero, J. M., Robles, F., Santisteban, C. & Torres, T. (19876): Approach to the Spanish continental Neogene synthesis and palaeocliamtic interpretation. — Ann. Ins. Geol. Publ. Hung., 70, 383–391; Budapest.Google Scholar
  9. Mein, P. (1975): Report on activity RCMNS Working groups. — Bratislava, 78–81.Google Scholar
  10. Mein, P. (1984): Composition quantitative des faunes de mammifères du Miocène moyen et supérieur de la région lyonnaise. — Paleobiologie continentale, 14 (2), 339–346; Montpellier.Google Scholar
  11. Thomas, H. (1979): Miotragocerus cyrenaicus sp. nov. (Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Mammalia) du Miocène supérieur de Sahabi (Libye) et ses rapports avec les autres Miotragocerus. — Geobios, 12 (2), 267–280; Lyon.Google Scholar
  12. Thomas, H. & Petter, G. (1986): Révision de la faune de Mammifères du Miocène de Menacer (ex-Marceau), Algérie: discussion sur l'age du gisement. — Geobios, 19 (3), 357–373; Lyon.Google Scholar
  13. Robinson, P. (1986): Very hypsodont antelopes from the Beglia Formation (central Tunisia) with a discussion of the Rupicaprini. — Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, Spec. Paper, 3, 305–315; Wyoming.Google Scholar
  14. Wiman, S. K. (1978): Mio-Pliocene foraminiferal biostratigraphy and stratochronology of central and northeastern Tunisia. — Revista Española de Micropaleontología, 10, 87–143; Madrid.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agusti J. 
  • Moya-Sola S. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Paleontologia “M. Crusafont”SabadellSpain

Personalised recommendations