Deperetomys hagni hungaricus, Hír, 2017

Hír, János, 2017, A Detailed Description Of Cricetodon Hungaricus (Kordos, 1986) (Rodentia, Mammalia) From Hasznos (N. Hungary, Nógrád County), Fossil Imprint 73 (1 - 2), pp. 155-171 : 156-167

Cricetodon hungaricus ( KORDOS, 1986)

1986 Deperetomys hagni hungaricus n. ssp.; Kordos, p. 524, pl. 1, figs 1−9, pl. 2, figs 1−9, pl. 3, figs 1−6.

1993 Cricetodon hungaricus ; De Bruijn et al., p. 208, pl. 18, figs 1−9, pl. 19, figs 1−9.

O r i g i n a l d i a g n o s i s. “Subspecies based on a specimen of great size with lengthy teeth and with a complicated structure of tooth elements slightly different from the type of Deperetomys hagni (FAHLBUSCH) . The anterocone is always bifid, the anterolophule connects the antero- and posterocones. The mesoloph is short, it does not extend up to the labial margin of the tooth, closing a small island at the medial base of the paracone.” ( Kordos 1986: 539).

E m e n d e d d i a g n o s i s. Large sized Cricetodon species with divided anterocone, frequent funnel structure, lingual transversal spur II and frequent short and thin entomesoloph in M1. Mesoloph is short or medium-sized in M1−M2, but most often long in M3. In the upper molars, an entomesoloph is present, a complete anterior ectoloph is relatively rare, but a complete posterior ectoloph is frequent. Labial anterolophid and protosinusid are well developed in m1. Metalophulid I + II are developed in 50% of the m1, only metalophulid II is present in the other specimens. A short or medium developed ectomesolophid is frequent in m1 but less frequent in m2 and m3. A short mesolophid is characteristic for the lower molars. In juvenile and adult molars, the cusps and cuspids are higher than the lophs and lophids.

D e s c r i p t i o n. M1. Anterocone consists of two conelets of equal size. There is a shallow and narrow groove between the cuspulas on the mesial surface. The labial conelet of the anterocone bears the remains of the labial anteroloph. The lingual conelet and the protocone are connected by the anterolophule. The labial conelet bears a labial anterocone sporn, which is variable in length ( Tab. 7). This anterior ectoloph is formed mainly by the anterocone sporn, the paracone anterior spur is distinguishable and forms part of the long anterior ectoloph in only 3 cases (3/26). The anterolophule frequently bears a lingual transversal spur II ( Tab. 8). The lingual sinuses are closed by thick cingula, the labial sinuses are open. Protolophule I is developed in only one molar. A thin entomesoloph is frequent ( Tab. 9), its length is variable. The mesoloph is short or medium-sized. The funnel structure is found in the majority of the molars ( Tab. 10). The paracone posterior spur is long and frequently connects to the anterior spur of the metacone. The posterior ectoloph is complete in 24 molars. The labial outline of the toothcrown is straight (17/26) or undulated: the paracone and metacone are standing out from the labial outline (9/26). Four roots. Dimensions are given in Table 1.

M 2. The labial anteroloph arm is thick, the lingual one is thin. In a few cases, the paracone anterior spur is connected to the lingual anteroloph arm ( Tab. 11). A protocone spur is frequent ( Tab. 12). The paracone posterior spur is long and reaches the anterior surface of the metacone in 17 molars. A mesoloph is found in 7/ 15 specimens. Its length is variable. The entomesoloph and the funnel structure are less frequent than in M1 ( Tabs 13, 14). A remnant of the labial posteroloph is developed in one molar. The labial outline of the toothcrown is straight (9/31) or undulated: the paracone and metacone are standing out from the labial outline (22/31). A posteroloph is not developed. Four roots. Dimensions are given in Table 2.

M 3. The anteroloph arm is developed as in M2. A labial anteroloph-paracone anterior spur connection is rare ( Tab. 16). A protocone spur is normal ( Tab. 15). The paracone posterior spur is long, in 18 molars it reaches the metacone. A short entomesoloph is rare ( Tab. 17). A long mesoloph is found in 16 cases. A complete funnel structure is frequent ( Tab. 18). Hypocone and metacone are reduced but distinct. Three roots. Dimensions are given in Table 3.

m 1. The small and rounded anteroconid is unicuspid. In lateral view, it is lower than the protoconid and metaconid. The labial anterolophid is well developed, it reaches the anterior basis of the protoconid and closes the elliptic protosinusid. A very short lingual anterolophid is relatively frequent ( Tab. 19). Metalophulid I and II are equally developed in 50% of the molars. Metalophulid II only is found in the other 50% ( Tab. 20). Short mesolophids and short ectomesolophids are frequent ( Tabs 21, 22). Labial sinusids and the posterosinusids are closed by a cingulum, but lingual sinusids are open. Two roots. Dimensions are given in Table 4.

m 2. Lingual anterolophid is absent.The labial anterolophid reaches the anterior basis of the protoconid and closes the deep protosinusid. Only metalophulid I is developed. The mesolophid is short, in a few molars it reaches the posterior basis of the metaconid ( Tab. 23). Protosinusid, labial main sinusid and the posterosinusid are closed, the lingual sinusid is open. The occurence of a short ectomesolophid is rare ( Tab. 24). Two roots. Dimensions are given in Table 5.

m 3. Lingual anterolophid is most usually absent. The labial anterolophid reaches the anterior basis of the protoconid and closes the deep protosinusid. In a few molars, a low remnant of the lingual anterolophid is found ( Tab. 25). The mesolophid is short and frequently reaches the posterior basis of the metaconid ( Tab. 26). The protosinusid is closed, the other sinusids are open. Two roots. Dimensions are given in Table 6.

C o m p a r i s o n. Cricetodon hungaricus from Hasznos

differs from the early Miocene Cricetodontini from Anatolia

− C. trallesensis ÇINAR DURGUT et ÜNAY, 2016, Söke, Turkey, MN 4, local biozone E ( Ünay et al. 2003),

− C. fikreti ÇINAR DURGUT et ÜNAY, 2016, Dededag, Turkey, MN 4, local biozone B ( Ünay et al. 2003),

− C. yapintiensis ÇINAR DURGUT et ÜNAY, 2016, Yapinti, Turkey, MN 3−4, local biozone D or E ( Ünay et al. 2003),

− C. magnesiensis ÇINAR DURGUT et ÜNAY, 2016, Kinik, Turkey, MN 3, local biozone D ( Ünay et al. 2003), − C. kasapligili DE BRUIJN, ÜNAY et HORDIJK, 1993, Keseköy, Turkey, MN 3, local biozone D ( Ünay et al. 2003),

− C. versteegi DE BRUIJN, ÜNAY et HORDIJK, 1993, Kilçak 3a, Turkey, MN 1, local biozone B ( Ünay et al. 2003), − C. tobieni DE BRUIJN, ÜNAY et HORDIJK, 1993, Horlak 1a, Turkey, MN 3, local biozone D ( Ünay et al. 2003), − Cricetodon n. sp. 1 in De Bruijn et al. (1993), Kilçak 3b, Turkey, MN 5, local biozone F ( Ünay et al. 2003), in being larger, in having a higher degree of hypsodonty and in always having four roots in M1 and M2.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. aliveriensis KLEIN

HOFMEIJER et DE BRUIJN, 1988 from Aliveri, Greece, MN 4:

− in being larger and in having a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the better developed ectolophs and in the presence of the funnel structure in M1 and M2,

− in the presence of the anterior ectoloph, in the posteriorly directed metalophule in M3,

− in the less developed lingual arm of the anterolophid and in the absence of metalophulid I in 50% of the m1s.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. caucasicus ARGYROPULO, 1938, Belomechettskaya, Georgia, MN 6, after Pickford et al. (2000):

− in being larger and having a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the divided anterocone in M1,

− in the presence of the entomesoloph in upper molars, − in the presence of metalophulid I + II in 50% of the m1s and in the presence of an ectomesolophid in the lower molars.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. meini

FREUDENTHAL, 1963, Vieux Collonges, France, MN 5, after

Mein and Freudenthal (1971b):

− in being larger and having a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the more frequent and well-developed lingual transversal spur II,

− in the frequent occurrence of the mesoloph, entomesoloph and the funnel structure,

− in the better developed ectolophs in M1,

− in the presence of a protocone spur,

− in the better developed ectolophs in M2 and M3,

− in the more frequent occurence of metalophulid I, in the presence of a very short lingual anterolophid arm in m1,

− in the occurrence of a short ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. aureus MEIN et

FREUDENTHAL, 1971b, Vieux Collonges, France, MN 5:

− in having larger mean measurements and a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the frequent and well-developed lingual transversal spur II,

− in the occurrence of the entomesoloph and funnel structure,

− in the better developed ectolophs in M1,

− in the occurrence of the entomesoloph and funnel structure,

− in the better developed ectolophs in M2,

− in the occurrence of the funnel structure in M3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. jotae MEIN

et FREUDENTHAL, 1971a, Manchones, Spain, MN 6, local

biozone G2, ( López-Guerrero et al. 2014b):

− in being larger and having a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the frequent and well-developed lingual transversal spur II,

− in the frequent occurrence of the mesoloph, entomesoloph and the funnel structure in M1,

− in the more frequent occurrence of an entomesoloph and the presence of the funnel structure in M2,

− in the presence of the protocone sporn, entomesoloph, funnel structure and the frequently long mesoloph in M3,

− in the more frequent mesolophid and ectomesolophid, the less frequent co-occurence of metalophulid I and metalophulid II in m1,

− in the occurrence of the short ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. jumaensis

RUMMEL, 2000, Petersbuch 18, 6, 35, Germany, MN 7 + 8

( Rummel 2000):

− in having larger mean measurements and a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the more deeply divided anterocone, and the absence of a labial transversal spur anteromesoloph in M1,

− in the presence of the funnel structure, and complete posterior ectoloph in the upper molars,

− in the regular presence of a metalophulid II in m1,

− in the presence of a short ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. bolligeri RUMMEL, 1995 , Petersbuch 10, Germany (originally the biochronological position was classified as MN 9, later it was emended by Prieto and Rummel (2016) to MN 7 + 8, close to the Megacricetodon gregarius-Deperetomys hagni interval zone of Kälin and Kempf (2009)):

− in having larger mean measurements and a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the more deeply divided anterocone, more frequent lingual transversal spur II, more frequent mesoloph, entomesoloph and complete posterior ectoloph in M1,

− in the less variable anterior region of the M1: among the 12 morphotypes described by Rummel (1995) 4 morphotypes are found in C. hungaricus,

− in the more frequent mesoloph, entomesoloph and complete posterior ectoloph in M2,

− in the presence of the funnel structure in the upper molars,

− in the more frequent mesolophid, in the less variable anterior region of m1: among the 6 morphotypes described by Rummel (1995) 2 types are found in C. hungaricus, and in the less frequent ectomesolophid in m1.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. sansaniensis

LARTET, 1851, Sansan, France, MN 6, after the emended

diagnosis and description of Maridet and Sen (2012):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the better developed and longer lingual transversal spur II,

− in the frequent presence of a funnel structure, in the presence of an entomesoloph, in the absence of a mesocone in M1,

− in the frequent presence of a funnel structure, in the presence of the entomesoloph, in the absence of a mesocone in M2 and M3,

− in the regular presence of metalophulid II,

− in the more frequent short mesolophid in m1,

− in the larger protosinusid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. albanensis MEIN

et FREUDENTHAL, 1971a, fissure L7, La Grive-Saint Alban,

France, MN 7 + 8: − in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure in the upper molars, − in the regular presence of metalophulid II in m1, − in the occurrence of a short ectomesolophid in the lower molars.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. engesseri RUMMEL et KÄLIN, 2003, Chräzerentobel 523 m, MN 7; Schauenberg- Langriet 690 m, MN 6; Mettlen-Weid, Switzerland, Megacricetodon similis-Megacricetodon gregarius interval Zone, MN 6 ( Kälin and Kempf 2009); Petersbuch 68, Germany, ~MN 6 ( Prieto and Rummel 2009):

− in the presence of the funnel structure and entomesoloph in the upper molars,

− in the regular presence of metalophulid II in m1,

− in the occurence of a short ectomesolophid in the lower molars.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. soriae LÓPEZ-

MARTÍNEZ, CÁRDABA, SALESA, HERNÁNDEZ FERNÁNDEZ,

CUEVAS- GONZÁLEZ et FESHARAKI in Hernández Fernández et

al. (2006), Somosaguas N, Spain, MN 5, Local biozone E: − inbeinglargerandhavingahigherdegreeofhypsodonty, − in the presence of a lingual transversal spur II, in the presence of a labial anterocone spur (= anterocone posterior ectoloph), in the frequent funnel structure and in the frequent entomesoloph in M1,

− in the presence of a funnel structure, in the longer mesoloph, in the presence of an entomesoloph and in the presence of a protocone spur in M2,

− in the presence of a funnel structure, in the presence of an entomesoloph and in the presence of a protocone spur in M3,

− in the absence of metalophulid I in 50% of the m1s, in the regular presence of the lingual anterolophulid and protosinusid, in the absence of the labial posterolophid,

− in the absence of the labial posterolophid in m2,

− in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. nievei LÓPEZ-

GUERRERO, ÁLVAREZ- SIERRA, GARCÍA- PAREDES et PELÁEZ-

CAMPOMANES, 2014a, Toril 3A, Spain, MN 7 + 8, Local

biozone G3:

− in being larger and having a higher degree of hypsodonty,

− in the less developed (only a remnant) lingual anteroloph,

− in the better developed and longer lingual transversal spur II,

− in a frequent funnel structure,

− in a more frequent entomesoloph in M1,

− in the longer mesoloph, in the frequent funnel structure and in a more frequent entomesoloph in M2,

− in the higher frequency of a long mesoloph and in the presence of a funnel structure in M3,

− in the better developed labial anterolophulid which always reaches the protoconid and closes the protosinusid, in the regular presence of metalophulid II and in the short and less frequent ectomesolophid in m1,

− in the short and less frequent ectomesolophid in m2.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys castelnovi AGUILAR, CALVET et MICHAUX, 1994, Castelnou 6, France, MN 6:

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the presence of a lingual transversal spur II in M1, − in the presence of the mesoloph, entomesoloph and funnel structure in the upper molars,

− in the presence of the protocone spur in M2 and M3, − in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and closed protosinusid, and in the regular presence of metalophulid II in m1,

− in the presence of an entomesoloph in the lower molars.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys bijugatus MEIN et FREUDENTHAL, 1971a, Fissure L3, carrière Lechartier, La Grive-Saint Alban, France, MN 7 + 8 (for detailed description see López-Antoñanzas and Mein (2009)):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure in M1,

− in the better developed and more frequent anterior ectoloph, in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure in M2 and M3,

− in the absence of metalophulid I in 50% of the m1s. In the presence of a short mesolophid and more frequent ectomesolophid in m1,

− in the occurrence of an ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys aguirrei SESÉ- BENITO, 1977, Escobosa de Calataňazor, Nombrevilla 2, Spain, MN 7 + 8, local biozone G3 (for detailed description see López-Guerrero et al. (2008)):

− in being larger,

− in the presence of a lingual transversal spur II in M1, − in the more frequent anterior ectoloph, in the presence of the mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph in M2 and M3,

− in the regular presence of metalophulid II in m1,

− in the better developed labial anterolophulid arm and the closed protosinusid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in the lower molars.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys decedens SCHAUB, 1925, La Grive-Saint Alban, Fissure L5’, France, MN 7 + 8 (for detailed description see López- Antoñanzas and Mein (2011)):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the absence of the additional conelets on the mesial

surface (prelobe) of the anterocone in M1,

− in the absence of metalophulid I in 50% of the m1s,

− in the more frequent ectomesolophid in m1,

− in the occurrence of an ectomesolophid in m2 and m3. Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys daamsi (AGUSTI, CASANOVAS- VILAR et FURIO, 2005), Can Missert, Spain, LateAragonien,MN7 +8,“justbeforetheentryofthe Hipparion ” ( Agusti et al. 2005) (later the chronological position of Can Missert was modifed by Alba et al. (2006) as “undetermined age between late Aragonian and early Vallesian”):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the presence of the lingual transversal spur II, funnel structure, mesoloph and entomesoloph in M1, − in the presence of the mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph in M2 and M3,

− in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and protosinusid, in the absence of metalophulid I in 50% of the m1s, in the more frequent ectomesolophid in m1, − in the better developed labial anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the occurrence of an ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys lavocati

FREUDENTHAL, 1966, Hostalets de Pierola, Spain, MN 7 + 8

( Agusti 1980):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the presence of the mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph in M1 and M2,

− in the higher frequency of a long mesoloph and the presence of an entomesoloph in M3,

− in the regular presence of metalophulid II in m1,

− in the more frequent mesolophid and the presence of an ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from the late Miocene Hispanomys species ,

H. adroveri AGUSTI, 1986, Casa del Acero, Spain, MN 12 and MN 13,

H. freudenthali VAN DE WEERD, 1976, Masada del Valle 2, Spain, MN 12,

H. baixasi AGUILAR, MICHAUX et LAZZARI, 2007, Lo Fournas 16-M, France, MN 11,

H. peralensis VAN DE WEERD, 1976, Peralejos, Spain, MN 10,

H. moralesi LÓPEZ- ANTOÑANZAS, PELÁEZ- CAMPOMANES, ÁLVAREZ- SIERRA, GARCÍA- PAREDES, 2010, Batallones 10, Spain, MN 10,

H. mediterraneus AGUILAR, 1982, Montredon, France, MN 10,

H. thaleri ( HARTENBERGER, 1965), Can Llobateres, MN 9, H. aragonensis ( FREUDENTHAL, 1966), Pedregueras 2C, MN 9,

H. nombrevillae ( FREUDENTHAL, 1966), Nombrevilla H, MN 9,

− in the lower degree of hypsodonty,

− in the lower value of the LM1/LM3 and Lm1/Lm3 ratios,

− in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph in the upper molars,

− in the presence of a lingual transversal spur II, mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph in M1, − in the regular metalophulid II in m1,

− in the better developed labial anterolophid and protosinusid in the lower molars,

− in the occurence of an ectomesolophid in the lower molars.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Cricetodon cf. hungaricus from Sámsonháza, Hungary, MN 6, ( Hír and Mészáros 2002):

− in the presence of the entomesoloph, funnel structure and posterior ectoloph in M1,

− in the presence of the mesoloph and entomesoloph in M2,

− in the always open anterosinusid, in the presence of metalophulid I and short mesolophid in m1.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Cricetodon sp. from Mátraszőlős 2, Hungary, MN 7 + 8, ( Hír and Kókay 2004): − in the occurence of a long lingual querspur II in M1,

− in the occurrence of an entomesoloph in the upper molars,

− in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and larger protosinusid in m2 and m3.

m1 is not represented in the limited material from Mátraszőlős.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Cricetodon sp. from Tăşad, Romania, MN 7 + 8, ( Hír et al. 2001): − in the occurence of a lingual querspur II, and in the continuous protocone-anterolophule-lingual anterocone connection in M1 (in the M1 from Tăşad the anterolophule is divided from the lingual anterocone by a narrow trench; Hír et al. 2001: pl. IV, fig. 5),

− in the occurence of the mesoloph, entomesoloph and funnel structure in the upper molars,

− in the presence of a labial anterolophid and protosinusid in m3.

m1 and m2 are not represented in the limited material

from Tăşad.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from “ Cricetodon ”

klariankae HÍR, 2007 , Felsőtárkány-Felnémet 2/3, Hungary,

MN 7 + 8:

− in having smaller mean M2 mesurements and in the lower degree of hypsodonty,

− in the presence of the lingual transversal spur II, mesoloph and funnel structure in M1,

− in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure in M2 and M3,

− in the less reduced hypocone and metacone in M3,

− in the more frequent mesolophid, the better developed labial anterolophid arm, protosinusid and in the less frequent metalophulid I in m1,

− in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from “ Cricetodon ” fandli PRIETO, BÖHME et GROSS, 2010, Gratkorn, Austria, early late Sarmatian, MN 7 + 8:

− in being larger,

− in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure in M1,

− in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure and in the presence of the entomesoloph in M2,

− in the presence of the mesoloph, funnel structure, as well as entomesoloph in M3,

− in the better developed labial anterolophid arm, the closed and nonreduced protosinusid, in the more frequent presence of a short mesolophid and ectomesolophid in m1,

− in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and the closed and nonreduced protosinusid, in the presence of a short ectomesolophid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia sp. or div. sp., Comăneşti 1, Romania, early late Sarmatian, MN 7 + 8 (first described as Hispanomys cf. lavocati and Hispanomys cf. bijugatus by Feru et al. (1980), later this classification was emended by Hír et al. (2011, 2016, 2017)):

− in the nearly equal anterior and posterior width in M2,

− in the presence of the mesoloph, entomesoloph, and

funnel structure in M2 and M3,

− in the better developed labial anterolophulid arm and

protosinusid and in the occurence of short mesolophid

and ectomesolophid in m1 and m3.

M1 and m2 are not represented in the material from Comăneşti.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys cf. bijugatus from Gaweinstal, Austria, MN 9 ( Harzhauser et al. 2011):

− in the presence of the mesoloph, entomesoloph and

funnel structure in M1.

Only one M1 is recorded from Gaweinstal.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Hispanomys sp. from Nebelberg TGL II and III, Switzerland, MN 9 (it was first published as Cricetodon sp. by Rummel and Kälin (2003); later the classification was emended by Engesser and Kälin (2005)):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the occurrence of lingual querspur II in M1,

− in the occurrence of better developed anterior ectoloph, mesoloph, funnel structure, protocone spur in upper molars,

− in the presence of the lingual anteroloph in M2 and M3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. pasalarensis

( TOBIEN, 1978), Paşalar, Turkey, originally published as

MN 6, later the biochronological position was revised

as MN 5, local biozone F ( Ünay et al. 2003) (for detailed

description see Ünay (1990)):

− in being larger,

− in the more frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the more frequent long mesoloph and in the more frequent complete funnel structure in M1,

− in the more frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the more frequent long mesoloph and funel structure, in the presence of the entomesoloph in M2,

− in the presence of the entomesoloph in M3,

− in the more frequent ectomesolophid and in the presence of a short mesolophid in m1,

− in the more frequent short mesolophid in m2,

− in the less frequent lingual anterolophid arm, in the more frequent short mesolophid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. candirensis ( TOBIEN, 1978), Çandir, Turkey, originally MN 6, later the biochronological position was revised as MN 5, local biozone F ( Ünay et al. 2003) (for detailed description see Rummel (1998) and De Bruijn et al. (2003)):

− in having larger mean measurements,

− in the more frequent lingual transversal spur II ( Tab. 28) and in the occurence of entomesoloph in M1,

− in the presence of the anterior ectoloph, the more frequent long mesoloph and funnel structure in M3 ( Tab. 28),

− in the significantly better developed labial anterolophid arm and protosinusid, in the more frequent metalophulid I, in the occurence of the short mesolophid and ectomesolophid in m1 ( Tab. 28),

− in the occurence of the ectomesolophid in m2,

− in the occurence of the ectomesolophid, and in the less reduced hypoconid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from C. cariensis SEN

et ÜNAY, 1979, Sariçay, Turkey, MN 7 + 8, local biozone

H ( Ünay et al. 2003) (for detailed description see Rummel

(1998)):

− in having smaller mean measurements,

− in the longer mesoloph, in the larger funnel structure and in the more frequent entomesoloph in M1,

− in the better developed labial anteroloph arm, in the longer mesoloph and in the more frequent entomesoloph in M2,

− in the better developed anteroloph arm, in the more frequent long mesoloph and funnel structure in M3,

− in the position of the anteroconid, which is situated on the longitudinal axis of the tooth crown and not pushed to the labial side, in the better developed labial anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the more frequent metalophulid I, mesolophid and ectomesolophid in m1.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia

eskihisarensis ( TOBIEN, 1978), Bayraktepe 1, Turkey, MN

7 + 8, local biozone H ( Ünay et al. 2003) (for detailed

description see Rummel (1998)):

− in having larger mean measurements, in the lower degree of hypsodonty and in the flat occlusal surface,

− in the narrower anterocone, in the narrower groove between the cusps of the anterocone, in the more frequent lingual transversal spur on the anterolophule, in the absence of a labial-transversal spur on the anterolophule, in the presence of a entomesoloph in M1,

− in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the less elongated shape, in the more frequent funnel structure, in the almost identical anterior and posterior width in M2,

− in the less reduced posterior part of the tooth crown, in the presence of long mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph in M3,

− in the larger anteroconid, in the better developed lingual anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the regular presence of metalophulid II, in the more frequent mesolophid in m1,

− in the less elongated shape and in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m2,

− in the less reduced hypoconid and in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia bayraktepensis ÜNAY, 1980, Bayraktepe I, Turkey, MN 7 + 8,

local biozone H ( Ünay et al. 2003) (for detailed description

see Rummel (1998)):

− in having larger mean measurements, in the lower degree of hypsodonty, in the flat wear surface,

− in having a narrower groove between the conelets of the anterocone, in the higher frequency of a lingual transversal spur on the anterolophule, in the presence of the mesoloph and funnel structure, in the lower frequency of complete anterior ectoloph in M1,

− in the non-elongated shape, in the better developed lingual anteroloph arm, in the presence of a mesoloph and funnel structure in M2 and M3,

− in the better developed lingual anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the regular presence of a metalophulid II, in the more frequent short mesolophid in m1,

− in not being elongated, in the presence of an ectomesolophid, in the absence of a lingual anterolophid arm in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia ozansoyi

ÜNAY, 1980, Bayraktepe I, Turkey, MN 7 + 8, local biozone

H ( Ünay et al. 2003) (for detailed description see Rummel

(1998)):

− in being larger, in the lower degree of hypsodonty, in the flat wear surface,

− in having a narrower groove between the cusps of the anterocone, in the more frequent lingual transversal spur II and funnel structure, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph and in the presence of an entomesoloph in M1,

− in the almost identical anterior and posterior width, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph and in the more frequent funnel structure in M2,

− in the better developed lingual anteroloph arm, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the presence of mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph in M3,

− in the stronger labial anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the longer anterolophulid, in the regular presence of a metalophulid II, in the absence of “X-structure” (the junction of metalophulid II, hypolophulid I, protoconid posterior arm and hypoconid anterior arm in the sense of Rummel (1998: 105), in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m1,

− in the less elongated shape, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m2,

− in the less reduced hypoconid and entoconid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia dardanellensis ÜNAY, 1980, Bayraktepe II, Turkey, MN 9, local biozone I ( Ünay et al. 2003):

− in having a lower degree of hypsodonty, in the flat wear surface, in the narrower groove, between the cusps of the anterocone, in the presence of a lingual transversal spur II, mesoloph, funnel structure and entomesoloph, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph in M1,

− in the almost identical anterior and posterior width, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph in M2,

− in the less elongated shape in M2 and M3,

− in the better developed lingual anteroloph arm in M3,

− in the stronger labial anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the regular presence of metalophulid II, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m1,

− in the less elongated shape, in the narrower metalophulid and hyplophulid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m2 and m3,

− in the less reduced hypoconid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia nikosi

DE BRUIJN, 1976, Biodrak, Greece, MN 10, local biozone I

( Ünay et al. 2003):

− in having larger mean measurements, in the lower degree of hypsodonty, in the flat wear surface,

− in the narrower groove between the cusps of the anterocone, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the presence of an entomesoloph in M1,

− in the almost identical anterior and posterior width, in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the presence of an entomesoloph in M2,

− in the less frequent complete anterior ectoloph, in the presence of mesoloph and entomesoloph in M3,

− in the ridge-like (not cusp-like) mesolophid,

− in the regular presence of metalophulid II, in the narrower metalophulid and hypolophulid in m1,

− in not being elongated, in the narrower metalophulid and hypolophulid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m2,

− in the less reduced hypoconid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia uenayae

RUMMEL, 1998, Karaözü, Turkey, MN 10 − MN 13, local

biozones J, K, L ( Ünay et al. 2003):

− in having larger mean measurements, in the lesser degree of hypsodonty, in the flat wear surface, in the narrower and less deep groove between the conelets of the anterocone, in the presence of mesoloph and entomesoloph in M1,

− in the almost identical anterior and posterior width in M2, in the presence of short anterolophule and lingual anteroloph arm, in the presence of anterior ectoloph, mesoloph, entomesoloph, in the presence of a funnel structure in M2 and M3,

− in the better developed labial anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the narrower metalophulid and hypolophulid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid in m1,

− in not being elongated, in the presence of better developed labial anterolophulid arm and protosinusid, in the narrower metalophulid and hyplophulid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid, in the less reduced hypoconid in m2 and m3.

Cricetodon hungaricus differs from Byzantinia pikermiensis DE BRUIJN, 1976, Pikermi, Greece, MN 12, detailed description given by Rummel (1998):

− in having larger mean measurements, in the lesser

degree of hypsodonty, in the flat wear surface, in the narrower anterocone, in the narrower groove between the cusps of the anterocone, in the presence of funnel structure and entomesoloph in M1,

− in not being elongated, in the almost identical anterior and posterior width, in the better developed lingual anteroloph arm, in the presence of a funnel structure and entomesoloph in M2,

− in not being elongated, protocone not incorporated into the anteroloph, hypocone and metacone not incorporated into the posteroloph in M3,

− in the narrower metalophulid and hyplophulid, the longer anterolophulid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid, in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and protosinusid in m1,

− in the narrower metalophulid and hyplophulid, in the presence of an ectomesolophid, in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and protosinusid,

− in the less elongated shape, in the presence of an ectomesolophid, in the better developed labial anterolophid arm and protosinusid in m3.