Hubbry Logo
AdcrocutaAdcrocutaMain
Open search
Adcrocuta
Community hub
Adcrocuta
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Adcrocuta
Adcrocuta
Adcrocuta
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Adcrocuta
Temporal range: late Miocene
Skeleton
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Hyaenidae
Subfamily: Hyaeninae
Genus: †Adcrocuta
Kretzoi, 1938
Species

A. eximia

A. eximia skull, National Natural History Museum of China

Adcrocuta is an extinct genus of large hyena that lived in Africa and Eurasia during the Miocene epoch.[1]

Distribution and chronology

[edit]

Fossils of A. eximia are known from across Eurasia during the Vallesian-Turolian age of the Late Miocene (around 9.6-4.9 million years ago[2]), spanning from Europe, including Spain, North Macedonia, France, Romania, Greece, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Ukraine, and Bulgaria,[3] and Asia including Turkey,[4][5] Kyrgyzstan,[6] Kazakhstan, Iran, China,[3] Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.[6]

Description

[edit]

Adcrocuta was comparable in size to a living spotted hyena,[7] with a body mass of around 30–100 kilograms (66–220 lb).[8] Its tooth enamel displays highly zigzag Hunter-Schreger bands (HSBs) in its permanent incisors, canines, and premolars, with its permanent first molar having fewer zigzag HSBs. Its deciduous teeth, with the exception of the deciduous first premolar, also had zigzag HSBs.[9]

Palaeoecology

[edit]

Like the modern day spotted hyena, A. eximia was an obligate carnivore.[10] The teeth display adaptations to bone cracking, making it one of the earliest hyenas to display evidence of being adapted to this activity, though the shape of the upper carnassial tooth suggests that flesh also probably formed a considerable part of its diet.[11] Its body was powerfully built. Some authors have suggested that it was likely not a fast runner, and that it was primarily a scavenger[2][11] though this has been disputed by other authors, who note its limb bones are no more robust than those of living spotted hyenas.[11] Its considerable size, which made it by a large margin the largest hyena in late Miocene Eurasia, likely made it effective both in kleptoparasitism (stealing kills from other carnivores), as well as predating on medium-large sized prey.[11] Based on the morphology of its brain cavity, it probably had a less sophisticated social system than modern bone-cracking spotted hyenas.[2] Although, some experts argue it was a social predator much spotted hyenas due to their high abundance.[12] The presence of A. eximia has been interpreted as a zoological indicator of open environments, as the species is believed to have had a preference for open grasslands.[13]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Adcrocuta

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Adcrocuta is an extinct of large, bone-cracking belonging to the Hyaenidae, that inhabited during the epoch, approximately 9.7 to 4.7 million years ago. The type and only widely recognized is Adcrocuta eximia, first described in from Pikermi, , and known from fossil remains including skulls, mandibles, and postcranial bones across numerous sites from in the west to in the east. This was a robust , comparable in size to the modern (Crocuta crocuta), with a body length of about 1.8 meters, powerful jaws featuring crushing premolars and adapted for bone-cracking, and short, sturdy limbs indicating a less lifestyle than some contemporary predators. Adcrocuta represents one of the earliest fully specialized bone-cracking , evolving advanced for and in diverse ecosystems ranging from woodlands to open savannas. evidence suggests it was both an opportunistic , feeding on carcasses left by saber-toothed cats and other predators, and an active hunter capable of taking medium-sized ungulates, as indicated by its hypercarnivorous dental morphology and robust build. Unlike the highly social modern , endocranial studies imply Adcrocuta had a more primitive brain structure, potentially reflecting simpler social behaviors and less complex . It coexisted with a rich carnivore , including machairodont felids like Amphimachairodus, and played a pivotal role in nutrient recycling through its bone-crushing habits. Records of Adcrocuta in are limited and debated, with some material previously assigned to the genus now reclassified to other hyaenids like , suggesting its primary distribution was in as part of the Vallesian to Turolian mammalian bioprovinces. The genus declined toward the end of the , likely due to environmental changes and competition, giving way to more modern hyaenid lineages in the .

Taxonomy

and discovery

The genus Adcrocuta was established by Hungarian paleontologist Miklós Kretzoi in 1938 to classify certain hyaenid fossils exhibiting morphological affinities to the modern (Crocuta crocuta), distinguishing them from earlier percrocutine forms. The , A. eximia, was initially described in the based on fossils recovered from the renowned Pikermi locality in , a key site yielding a diverse assemblage of large mammals. In 1854, Andreas Wagner and Johann Samuel von Roth formally named it Hyaena eximia, with the consisting of a hemimandible (now housed in the Bavarian State Collection of and in Munich) from Pikermi's Pikermian fauna deposits, dated to approximately 7.2–5.3 million years ago. Early taxonomic assignments reflected the limited understanding of hyaenid evolution at the time, with the species later transferred to the genus Crocuta by Guy Ellcock Pilgrim in 1931, who recognized its bone-crushing adaptations akin to living . Kretzoi's 1938 revision introduced Adcrocuta as a distinct genus for A. eximia and related forms, emphasizing their transitional position between primitive hyaenids and more derived crocutines. Subsequent revisions included Björn Kurtén's 1957 proposal to subsume Adcrocuta under Percrocuta as a subgenus of Crocuta, viewing it as part of a percrucutoid grade; however, this was refined by Giovanni Ficcarelli and Delfino de Torre in 1970, who reinstated Adcrocuta as a separate genus alongside Percrocuta based on cranial and dental distinctions, a upheld in modern analyses.

Classification and phylogeny

Adcrocuta is placed within the family Hyaenidae, specifically in the subfamily Hyaeninae, the clade encompassing modern bone-cracking and scavenging hyaenids. This classification reflects its advanced craniodental features, including a shortened skull and robust carnassials suited for processing bone, which align it closely with the derived hyaenines rather than earlier, more generalized forms. Phylogenetic analyses based on morphological data position Adcrocuta as the sister taxon to Crocuta, the genus of extant spotted hyenas, supported by shared synapomorphies such as the loss of the m2 and enhanced sagittal crest development for powerful jaw musculature. Numerical cladistic studies from the 1990s, incorporating 24 cranial and dental characters across 13 hyaenid taxa, consistently recover Adcrocuta branching from the hyaenine stem in the late Miocene (Turolian stage, approximately 8–5 Ma), forming a monophyletic group with Crocuta to the exclusion of other subfamilies like the cursorial Hyaenictinae. Later reviews in the 2000s reinforce this topology, emphasizing Adcrocuta's role in the diversification of European and Asian hyaenids during the Neogene, with cladograms showing it as a basal member of the crocutoid lineage. Adcrocuta holds evolutionary significance as the earliest known hyaenid with fully developed bone-cracking adaptations, marking the transition from the more primitive —a paraphyletic assemblage of early hyaenids with convergent hypercarnivorous traits—to the specialized Hyaeninae of the and beyond. This genus exemplifies the emergence of durophagous ecomorphology in Hyaenidae, bridging percrocutid-like precursors (e.g., Percrocuta) and modern forms through innovations like trenchant and reinforced jaw joints, which facilitated scavenging and hunting strategies dominant in later hyaenine radiation. The genus includes one widely recognized species, A. eximia (originally described from Pikermi, Greece), which dominates late Miocene assemblages across Eurasia, with limited and debated records in Africa. Formerly included species such as A. australis have been reclassified into Chasmaporthetes based on cursorial adaptations inconsistent with hyaenine bone-crackers. A provisional subspecies, A. eximia latro, is noted from Sivalik deposits in South Asia, though its validity remains debated due to limited material and potential synonymy with the nominate form.

Physical characteristics

Skull and dentition

The skull of Adcrocuta eximia, the type and most well-known species of the genus, exhibits a robust morphology adapted for durophagy, featuring a relatively elongated rostrum and a convex superior cranial profile with a small concave depression at the frontonasal region. The zygomatic arches are robust, providing anchorage for powerful masseter muscles, while a forms a convex arch along the , enhancing attachment for temporalis muscles despite the braincase being relatively short and not markedly extended posteriorly. Average skull length measures approximately 28–30 cm, with one well-preserved specimen reaching a maximal length of 280 mm and a width at the zygomatic arches of 122 mm. Endocranial volume is estimated at 130–200 mL. The of Adcrocuta displays specialized features for -cracking, including enlarged teeth (P⁴ and M₁) optimized for shearing tough materials, with the upper (P⁴) measuring up to 38 mm in length and featuring a high parastyle, an elongate metacone longer than the paracone, and a reduced protocone. Premolars such as P²–P³ and p₄ are robust and conical, with high main cusps and mesial/distal crests but reduced or absent accessory cusps, facilitating fragmentation; the lower (m₁) is relatively reduced compared to earlier hyaenids, measuring about 27 mm in length with a bicuspid talonid lacking a hypoconulid and no m₂ present. The loss of M² and m₂ further emphasizes the trend toward a simplified, durophagous , with broad premolars (e.g., P³ width/length ratio of 0.60–0.73) and zig-zag enamel microstructure (mean Hunter-Schreger band angle <90°). Jaw mechanics in Adcrocuta support high bite forces, estimated at 1,700–3,500 N at the based on biomechanical models derived from cranial dimensions and comparisons to extant bone-cracking hyaenids like Crocuta crocuta. The is robust, with a angled at 130° to the lower surface and a coronoid process at 120°, extending the masseteric fossa to the talonid of m₁ for enhanced leverage. Canine bite forces range from 1,100–2,400 N, reflecting the teeth's role in initial prey engagement. Specimens of Adcrocuta eximia show variations, including in canine size, with upper canines exhibiting significant size differences (e.g., lengths varying due to sex-specific robusticity) and partial eruption in subadults. Incisors increase in size from I¹ to I³, with the latter often not fully erupted in younger individuals, while lower canines are more developed than uppers in some fossils. These traits underscore intraspecific diversity without altering the overall bone-crushing specialization.

Body size and skeletal build

Adcrocuta eximia, the type and only recognized species of the genus, attained an adult body mass estimated at 52–97 kg, comparable to that of large modern spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), derived from measurements of the humerus trochlea circumference and other long bone dimensions such as the femur. These estimates reflect a medium-to-large size within Miocene hyaenids, with sexual dimorphism likely influencing variation, though specific dimorphic data remain limited. The skeletal build of A. eximia was characteristically robust and terrestrial, featuring stocky limbs adapted for strength rather than extreme . The forelimbs were short and powerfully constructed, with a broad providing enhanced shoulder stability for forceful activities like digging and manipulating carcasses. In contrast, the hindlimbs were relatively elongated, indicating moderate abilities suitable for traversing open paleoenvironments in pursuit of scavenging opportunities. Key postcranial features include robust metapodials that supported substantial weight-bearing during locomotion and feeding, paired with reduced claws that suggest a transitional plantigrade-to-digitigrade optimized for efficient scavenging on varied terrains. A well-preserved complete from Hadzhidimovo, , comprising 156 bones from an immature individual, confirms these proportions and highlights the overall sturdy construction. This build underscores adaptations for a durophagous , with the robust complementing cranial strength for bone-cracking. Relative to the earlier percrocutid genus Percrocuta, Adcrocuta displayed increased skeletal robustness, particularly in limb girth and overall proportions, marking an evolutionary progression toward more specialized bone-cracking forms among hyaenids.

Temporal and geographic distribution

Chronology

Adcrocuta inhabited during the , with a temporal range encompassing the late Vallesian to late Turolian stages, corresponding to European mammal zones MN 10 through MN 13, approximately 10 to 5.3 million years ago. This span is determined through biostratigraphic correlations with mammalian assemblages and magnetostratigraphic data from key formations. The earliest known records of the , primarily attributed to the A. eximia, occur in the late Vallesian (MN 10), dated to around 10–9 Ma, as evidenced by fossils from the Middle Sinap Formation in central . These ages are refined by of volcanic ashes and detailed within the Sinap sequence, which anchors the local first appearances of diagnostic taxa like Adcrocuta to chron C5r.3r at approximately 9.9 Ma. Adcrocuta persisted through the Turolian (MN 11–13), with records extending to the late Turolian (MN 13) around 6–5 Ma, after which the genus disappeared amid widespread faunal turnovers linked to and environmental shifts at the Miocene-Pliocene boundary. Biostratigraphic frameworks using MN zones provide broad , supplemented by radiometric dates from tuffs in Eurasian sites, confirming the genus's duration across this interval without significant chronological gaps.

Fossil sites and paleoenvironments

Fossils of Adcrocuta are primarily known from deposits across , spanning from the Mediterranean region to . Key localities include Pikermi and in , where numerous cranial and postcranial remains have been recovered, representing some of the type material for A. eximia. Other significant sites are in northwestern , yielding dentary fragments and isolated teeth comparable to Greek specimens, and Hadzhidimovo in southwestern , which has produced a nearly complete comprising 156 bones. Additional records come from eastern localities such as Kutschwan in Province, , with cranial and postcranial elements, and the Kochkor Basin in , featuring identified as A. eximia. The geographic distribution of Adcrocuta reflects a widespread presence in subtropical to temperate zones during the Turolian stage (MN11–MN13), from through the to . This pattern aligns with the broader dispersal of the Pikermian chronofauna, indicating connectivity across these regions via migratory routes. Paleoenvironmental reconstructions for these sites point to wooded s and open grasslands, characteristic of the warming phase. At Pikermi and , faunal assemblages dominated by mixed-feeding ungulates, such as hipparions and giraffids, alongside pollen data suggesting sclerophyllous s with grassy understories, indicate a of open and habitats. Similarly, the Formation preserves -type deposits with and lacustrine , inferred from and associated fossils adapted to and in semi-arid, vegetated plains. These environments supported diverse guilds, where Adcrocuta was a common element, with over 100 specimens documented across Eurasian sites, predominantly from and adjacent areas.

Paleoecology and behavior

Diet and feeding adaptations

Adcrocuta eximia exhibited a hypercarnivorous diet primarily focused on scavenging meat and marrow from large ungulates, with specialized adaptations for durophagy enabling efficient bone-cracking similar to that of modern spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). Dental microwear analysis reveals intermediate frequencies of pits and scratches on the paracone of the upper (P4), indicative of abrasion from consuming bone fragments alongside flesh, closely matching patterns observed in extant bone-cracking hyaenids. This evidence supports a feeding strategy involving opportunistic , where individuals stole kills from other predators, supplemented by occasional hunting of juvenile prey to access nutrient-rich scraps and marrow. Morphological adaptations for this diet included broader premolars (p3 and p4) compared to earlier hyaenids, facilitating the crushing of hard objects, and a zig-zag Hunter-Schreger Band enamel microstructure that enhanced resistance to fracture during mastication of s. These features represent an evolutionary advancement in durophagous specialization over contemporaneous genera like Hyaenictis, positioning Adcrocuta as a precursor to the scavenging dominance seen in later taxa such as and modern . Microwear patterns in juvenile specimens show elevated scratch counts, suggesting early incorporation of tougher foods like into their diet, distinct from adult patterns and underscoring ontogenetic shifts in feeding . Stable isotope analyses of associated faunas from sites indicate that Adcrocuta's prey derived from C3-dominated vegetation environments, with values reflecting C3-based ungulates in open woodlands or steppes. Overall, these adaptations allowed Adcrocuta to exploit nutrient-dense resources inefficiently utilized by sympatric predators, reinforcing its role as a dominant in ecosystems.

Ecological role and interactions

Adcrocuta served as a top and mid-tier predator within carnivore guilds, occupying an intermediate niche between large saber-toothed cats, such as Machairodus copei, and smaller opportunistic carnivores like Ictitherium viverrinum. This positioning allowed it to exploit bone-rich carcasses while occasionally pursuing live prey, contributing to the scavenging dynamics of open-savanna ecosystems dominated by the fauna. Its bone-cracking adaptations facilitated efficient processing of remains left by apex predators, enhancing nutrient recycling in food webs. Co-occurrence with machairodonts such as Amphimachairodus at sites, along with bite marks on bones attributable to Adcrocuta, suggests potential over carcasses in shared habitats. Adcrocuta likely avoided direct confrontations with larger herbivores, relying instead on opportunistic access to kills made by predators like Amphimachairodus, thereby minimizing risk while maximizing caloric intake from marrow and scraps. Such behaviors underscore its role in mitigating waste accumulation and influencing community structure. Niche partitioning with contemporaneous percrocutoids like Percrocuta enabled across Eurasian faunas, driven by differences in feeding strategies that reduced direct overlap, though resource competition persisted due to potential diurnal-nocturnal activity mismatches. These distinctions allowed Adcrocuta to dominate bone exploitation while Percrocuta targeted softer tissues or smaller prey, fostering coexistence amid abundant large herbivores. The genus's extinction at the end of the Turolian stage of the , approximately 5.3 million years ago, coincided with climatic shifts and associated faunal turnovers, which diminished populations of large grazing herbivores and intensified environmental pressures on specialized carnivores. This climatic shift, marked by biome reorganization, likely reduced prey availability and heightened inter-guild competition, leading to the replacement of percrocutoid-dominated assemblages by more versatile hyaenids.

References

  1. https://doi.org/10.26879/1033
  2. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5377883
  3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1990.tb01206.x
  4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10914-025-09784-1
  5. https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-pdf/98/4/363/16891698/j.1096-3642.1990.tb01206.x.pdf
  6. https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/html/03F987EDB15A3357FD2DF8B7FE7E7395
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358206565_A_complete_skeleton_of_Adcrocuta_eximia_Roth_and_Wagner_1854_from_the_Upper_Maeotian_Turolian_of_Hadzhidimovo_SW_Bulgaria
  8. https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/g2005n4a4.pdf
  9. https://foreninger.uio.no/ngf/FOS/pdfs/F&S_30.pdf
  10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geobios.2008.01.001
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319352529_Endocranial_morphology_of_the_Late_Miocene_bone-cracking_hyena_Adcrocuta_eximia_Carnivora_Hyaenidae_compared_with_extant_hyenas
  12. https://www.geologica-balcanica.eu/sites/default/files/sites/defauld/files/articles/0324-0894_v41_i1-3_p077.pdf
  13. https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2018/hdl_10803_665133/vivi1de1.pdf
  14. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/553381012.pdf
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068311001564
  16. https://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/anderson_2003_msc.pdf
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233346740_Correlation_of_carnassial_tooth_size_and_body_weight_in_Recent_carnivores_Mammalia
  18. https://www.geologica-balcanica.eu/journal/41/1-3/pp.-77-95
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230210753_Studies_of_fossil_hyaenids_The_genus_Adcrocuta_Kretzoi_and_the_interrelationships_of_some_hyaenid_taxa
  20. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:926393/FULLTEXT02
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222003075
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309107877_Chronology_of_the_Sinap_Formation
  23. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/geology-and-paleontology-of-the-miocene-sinap-formation-turkey/9780231113588
  24. https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02470749v1/document
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068315001451
  26. https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-abstract/98/4/363/2645531
  27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12542-023-00658-6
  28. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/1033.pdf
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2715530/
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/dietary-interpretation-and-paleoecology-of-herbivores-from-pikermi-and-samos-late-miocene-of-greece/B6D154A962FBCC82B77DFEBB8BC74FDD
  31. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/paleosoc/paleobiol/article-abstract/36/1/113/110332/Dietary-interpretation-and-paleoecology-of
  32. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12549-016-0238-z
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018224001226
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337937468_Carnivoran_Dietary_Adaptations_A_Multiproxy_Study_on_the_Feeding_Ecology_of_the_Fossil_Carnivorans_of_Greece
  35. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:926393/FULLTEXT02
  36. https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/g2006n3a7.pdf
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355487587_The_Fossil_Record_of_Hyaenids_Mammalia_Carnivora_Hyaenidae_in_Greece
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Adcrocuta-eximia-Nikiti-2-NIK-Macedonia-Greece-Early-Turolian-MN-11-a-e-Skull_fig5_299457228
  39. https://research-portal.uu.nl/files/13397321/Dam_Jan.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.