identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
547FC451FFFD7F41FE3C6800FBD6FCC1.text	547FC451FFFD7F41FE3C6800FBD6FCC1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz 1843)	<div><p>Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1843)</p><p>(Figs 10–13)</p><p>1843 Notidanus primigenius n. sp. – AGASSIZ, pp. 218–220, pl. 27, figs 6–17.</p><p>1933 Notidanus (? Notorhynchus) primigenius Ag. – WEILER, p. 23, text-fig. 11.</p><p>1938 Notidanus (? Notorhynchus) primigenius Ag. – WEILER, p. 7, pl. 1, fig. 16.</p><p>1970 Hexanchus primigenius (L. Agassiz, 1843) – BRZOBOHATÝ &amp; KALABIS, p. 42, figs 3, 4.</p><p>1970 Hexanchus primigenius (Agassiz) – CAPPETTA, pl. 4, figs 11–19.</p><p>1993 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1843) – BAUT, p. 3, figs 3–4.</p><p>1999 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1843) – BAUT &amp; GÉNAULT, pp. 10–11, pl. 1, figs 1–4.</p><p>2001 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1843) – REINECKE et al., pp. 7–8, pls 1–5.</p><p>2005 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1835) – REINECKE et al., pp. 8–9, pls 1–2.</p><p>2010 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1843) – HOVESTADT et al., p. 60, fig. 14.</p><p>2013 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1835) – SCHULTZ, pp. 24–27, pl. 4, figs 9a, b.</p><p>2014 Notorynchus primigenius (Agassiz, 1835) – REINECKE et al., pp. 8–9, pls 1–2.</p><p>Referred material: 13 teeth (V.61.672C., V.61.794., V.61.818., V.61.834., V.61.862., VER 2016.3418., VER 2016.3429., VER 2016.3455.).</p><p>Remarks: The here referred material consists mostly of lower lateral teeth. Lower laterals have a wide and high, labiolingually flattened root, typical for lower laterals of hexanchid sharks. This root is getting thicker to the root-crown boundary (HOLEC et al. 1995). The crown of lower laterals is made up of small mesial cusplets, a main (or principal) cusp, and distal cusplets (usually 3–6 distal cusplets, distally decreasing in size). The lower symphyseals are variable in detailed morphology, however, they mostly have a symmetrical, or nearly symmetrical contour. The upper anteriors have no distal or mesial cusplets, but an elongated main cusp, sigmoid in shape. The root of upper laterals is similar to that of lower ones, but their main cusp is significantly bigger than all other cusplets (these files have mostly 2–3 distal cusplets, often with missing mesial cusplets).</p><p>The HNHM specimens are mostly fragmentary or poorly preserved, most of them has no root. Even if some teeth are preserved as fragments only, they can be distinguished from the teeth of Hexanchus (see below) by the dimensions, size, number and proportions of the cusplets. Two lower laterals (V.61.794. and V.61.818.) are in relatively good condition, almost their whole crown is preserved. One lower symphyseal tooth is also known (VER 2016.3455., Fig. 10). The specimen is in very good condition, it has nearly symmetrical shape in labiolingual view. However, it had no inventory label, but it was identifiable as the tooth was figured by WEILER (1938, pl. 1, fig. 16; also Fig. 11 of this work). The characteristic symmetry, the number of cusplets and the shape of the preserved portions of the root allow this matching. This specimen (VER 2016.3455.) was already figured by FŐZY &amp; SZENTE (2012), without exact locality.</p><p>Under specimen V.61.672C. a handwritten label was found (Fig. 7), which refers this specimen to one of Weiler’s figure (1933, text-fig. 11). It is easily imaginable that specimen V.61.672C. and Weiler’s figured one are the same, since the preserved partial outline of the tooth in the clay (Fig. 12) is similar to Weiler’s specimen. However, in this case Weiler’s figure is horizontally mirrored (Fig. 13). It is also worth mentioning that the old label of V.61.672C. was written in German, but the style of handwriting differs from those of the two other handwritten labels found under the specimens of Weiler (see Figs 4, 6, and 7).</p><p>The genus Notorynchus is known from the Early Cretaceous, with one recent species, Notorynchus cepedianus Péron, 1807 (COMPAGNO 1984). N. primigenius ranges from the Oligocene to the Miocene, and it was reported widely from shallow marine sediments (see in CAPPETTA 2012; REINECKE et al. 2014).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFFD7F41FE3C6800FBD6FCC1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFFC7F4FFE4169DDFD11FE08.text	547FC451FFFC7F4FFE4169DDFD11FE08.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hexanchus agassizi Cappetta 1976	<div><p>Hexanchus agassizi Cappetta, 1976</p><p>(Figs 14–17)</p><p>1976 Hexanchus agassizi n. sp. – CAPPETTA, pp. 553–554, pl. 1, figs 5, 7, 8.</p><p>1979 Hexanchus agassizi Cappetta, 1976 – WARD, pp. 114–115, pl. 2, figs 1–2.</p><p>2005 Hexanchus sp. – REINECKE et al., p. 9, pl. 3, figs 1a-b.</p><p>2012 Hexanchus agassizi Cappetta, 1976 – CAPPETTA, pp. 92–93, fig. 82.</p><p>2013 Hexanchus agassizi Cappetta, 1976 – SCHULTZ, pp. 23–24, pl. 4, figs 4a, b, 5.</p><p>2014 Hexanchus cf. agassizi Cappetta, 1976 – REINECKE et al., pp. 9–10, pls 3–4.</p><p>Referred material: 17 teeth (V.61.282., V.61.285A., V.61.770., VER 2016.3449., VER 2016.3456., VER 2016.3457., VER 2016.3458.).</p><p>Remarks: These teeth are similar to those of N. primigenius in general morphology, however, they are visually different in their much smaller size, and in having much more distal cusplets on the lower lateral teeth. The upper anteriors are higher than wide, with one slender, sinuous cusp without mesial or distal cusplets. The lower anterolateral-lateral files could be extremely wider than high, with mostly 7–9 distal cusplets reduced in height distally (Figs 15–17).</p><p>Most of the HNHM material of H. agassizi is in very poor condition, however, some of the specimens have very well-preserved crown. All specimens show close morphological affinities with the H. agassizi teeth figured by CAPPETTA (2012, p. 92, fig. 82).</p><p>Hexanchus agassizi was a widespread species from the Early Eocene to the Late Oligocene; its remains have been recovered from deep water sediments (see in CAPPETTA 2012; REINECKE et al. 2014).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFFC7F4FFE4169DDFD11FE08	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF27F4CFE4E6813FCE0FD3F.text	547FC451FFF27F4CFE4E6813FCE0FD3F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heptranchias howelli (Reed 1946)	<div><p>Heptranchias howelli (Reed, 1946)</p><p>(Figs 18–23)</p><p>1938 Fam. et gen. indet. (Inc. sed.) – WEILER, pl. 1, fig. 15.</p><p>1946 Notidanion howelli n. sp. – REED, pp. 1–3, figs 1–4.</p><p>1995 Heptranchias sp. – SIVERSON, pp. 4–5, figs 2A-C.</p><p>2009 Heptranchias howelli (Reed, 1946) – BIEŃKOWSKA-WASILUK &amp; RADWAŃSKI, pp. 238–239, pl. 1, figs 1–5.</p><p>2012 Heptranchias howelli (Reed, 1946) – CAPPETTA, p. 99, fig. 86.</p><p>2014 Heptranchias howelli Reed, 1946 – CARLSEN &amp; CUNY, p. 64, figs 16A-B.</p><p>2014 Heptranchias sp. – REINECKE et al., pp. 10–11, pl. 5, figs 1–5.</p><p>2015 Heptranchias howelli (Reed, 1946) – ADOLFFSEN &amp; WARD, pp. 7–8, figs 2L-M.</p><p>Referred material: 3 teeth (V.61.814., VER 2016.3452., VER 2016.3453.).</p><p>Remarks: In general, teeth of Heptranchias have typical hexanchid morphology (see above at N. primigenius and H. agassizi). The lower teeth are wider than the upper teeth, while cusplets of the upper teeth are distally bent, and more elongated. The upper anteriors bear no cusplets, but an elongated main cusp, strongly sigmoid in shape from labiolingual view (Figs 18–19). The upper lateral teeth have a distally bent (or sometimes weakly sigmoid) main cusp, which outgrows the distally also bent distal and mesial cusplets (Figs 20–21). The principal cusp of the lower lateral teeth is longer than the distal cusplets, which are nearly in the same size – except the most distal 1–2 cusplets (Figs 22–23; see CAPPETTA 2012, fig. 86E-F; TRIKOLIDI 2014, fig. 15). The root is mesiodistally wide, and labiolingually flattened on every file. Among all tooth positions, lower laterals are the taxonomically most significant.</p><p>One upper anterior tooth (morphologically identical with the figured specimen of CAPPETTA 2012, fig. 86A) is known in the collection of the HNHM (Figs 18–19). The upper lateral figured by WEILER (1938, pl. 1, fig. 15; also Fig. 21 of this work) is closely identical with the one figured by CAPPETTA (2012, fig. 86C, D). This tooth (VER 2016.3453.) was found among the non-catalogued HNHM material, with an old, handwritten label under it (“ Inc. sed. Taf. I. Fig. 15 ”).</p><p>Heptranchias is a neritic (relatively deep water) form known from the Late Cretaceous (Campanian), exists up to nowadays with one recent species, Heptranchias perlo (Bonnaterre, 1788), also known as sharpnose sevengill shark. Fossils of the genus are all isolated tooth remains, which are not common in any geological deposits (CAPPETTA 2012). The genus has also been reported by REINECKE et al. (2014) from the Chattian of the Thalberg Beds (Bavaria, Germany), which material seems to show affinity with the species H. howelli, however, only upper anteriors and upper laterals have been published there. Lower laterals of H. howelli have been reported from the Lower Oligocene Menilite Formation of the Polish Outer Carpathians (BIEŃKOWSKA-WASILUK &amp; RADWAŃSKI 2009), from the Early Paleocene (Danian) of Denmark (ADOLFFSEN &amp; WARD 2015) and from the Middle Eocene (Late Ypresian to Middle Lutetian) Lillebaelt Clay of Denmark (CARLSEN &amp; CUNY 2014).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF27F4CFE4E6813FCE0FD3F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF17F4AFE3D692DFEE3FDA1.text	547FC451FFF17F4AFE3D692DFEE3FDA1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Araloselachus cuspidatus (Agassiz 1843)	<div><p>Araloselachus cuspidatus (Agassiz, 1843)</p><p>(Figs 24–27)</p><p>1843 Lamna cuspidata n. sp. – AGASSIZ, p. 290, pl. 37a, figs 43–50.</p><p>1993 Carcharias cuspidata (Agassiz, 1843) – BAUT, p. 4, figs 22, 24.</p><p>1999 Carcharias cuspidata (Agassiz, 1844) – BAUT &amp; GÉNAULT, pp. 15–16, pl. 3, figs 3–6.</p><p>2005 Carcharias cuspidatus (Agassiz, 1843) – REINECKE et al., pp. 24–25, pl. 9, figs 1–7.</p><p>2007 Carcharias cuspidatus (Agassiz, 1843) – KOCSIS, p. 32, pl. 4, figs 12–13.</p><p>2010 Carcharias cuspidata (Agassiz, 1843) – HOVESTADT et al., p. 60, figs 5–7.</p><p>2012 Araloselachus cuspidatus (Agassiz, 1843) – CAPPETTA, p. 191, fig. 180.</p><p>2013 Carcharias cuspidatus (Agassiz, 1843) – SCHULTZ, pp. 61–66, pl. 5, figs 5a, b.</p><p>2014 Araloselachus cuspidatus (Agassiz, 1843) – REINECKE et al., pp. 17–20, pls 16–18.</p><p>Referred material: 5 teeth (V.61.671., V.61.677F-I., VER 2016.3447.)</p><p>Remarks: The teeth are robust and massive among odontaspids. The cutting edges are smooth, they usually do not reach the tooth-crown boundary, except for some upper lateral-distal files (see below). The labial face is nearly flat, while the lingual is convex. The root is typically bifurcated with a large nutritive groove on a central bulge. The root-lobes are less angled on upper laterals. Anterior to lateral teeth could bear one or two pairs of relatively small and pointed cusplets. The lateral cusplets of the anteriors are typically circular in cross-section, while those of laterals and distals are labiolingually flattened. The anterior files have straight, narrow, high main cusp (Fig. 24). The crown of the lower laterals is also symmetrical, straight, and narrow, but these files are much lower than the anteriors. The upper laterals-distals are distally bent with low, triangular main crown. The cutting edge of these files sometimes continues in the cutting edges of the cusplets (Figs 25–27).</p><p>Odontaspids are common and widespread in many Paleogene and Neogene marine deposits. This species is widely known from Europe and North America, from the Lower Oligocene to the boundary of the Middle and Upper Miocene (CAPPETTA 1987; HOLEC et al. 1995; REINECKE et al. 2014). WEILER (1933, p. 23 and 1938, p. 8) also reported the species from the Kiscell Clay as Odontaspis cuspidata .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF17F4AFE3D692DFEE3FDA1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF77F4AFE106846FEFEFB1D.text	547FC451FFF77F4AFE106846FEFEFB1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carcharias Rafinesque 1810	<div><p>Genus Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810</p><p>The dentition is strongly heterodont, the teeth have typical odontaspid tooth morphology. All teeth have long, pointed main crown, bifurcated root with one or two pairs of cusplets. The cutting edges are smooth all along, they do not reach the base of the main crown. The anteriors are thin and slender, their main crown is elongated, symmetrical in labiolingual view, while strongly sigmoid in profile view. The lower laterals are similar to the anterior, but they are shorter, and less sigmoid. The distals and the upper laterals have a distally bent main crown.</p><p>The root has two, slender branches, with a massive central bulge on the lingual side. This bulge bears a visual nutritive groove. The cusplets of the anteriors are pointed and also slender, they are usually circular in cross-section. The laterals and distals have labiolingually straight, triangular cusplets. WEILER (1933, 1938) reported Carcharias acutissima (as Odontaspis acutissima) from the Kiscell Clay, however, he did not figure these teeth, and he did not mention any detail about a possible ornamentation of the lingual face of the main crown, therefore this report could belong to any of the here detailed Carcharias morphogroups (see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF77F4AFE106846FEFEFB1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF77F4BFD826ED3FE20FDA1.text	547FC451FFF77F4BFD826ED3FE20FDA1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carcharias undefined-1	<div><p>Carcharias sp. 1</p><p>(Figs 28–30)</p><p>Referred material:7teeth(VER2016.3411., VER2016.3425.,VER2016.3441., VER 2016.3442.).</p><p>Remarks: The lingual face of the main crown bears fine apicobasal striation, which disappears towards the tip (this striation is not as visible and well-developed as that of members of the family Mitsukurinidae). The labial face is smooth, without any ornamentation.</p><p>In having striated lingual face, these teeth show affinities to the species Carcharias acutissima (Agassiz, 1843) . This species is known from the Eocene and became abundant in the Miocene (CAPPETTA 2012). All the Kiscell Clay specimens referred here bear the lingual striation of the main crown, however, only one (VER 2016.3441.; Figs 28–30) has lateral cusplets preserved. This cusplet is not so bent to the main crown, as it is typical for the species. It is weakly bent labiolingually, it has weak, flattened edges to the tip. This difference could have been caused by intraspecific variability, due to the strong heterodonty, but for a certain taxonomic determination more specimens are needed.</p><p>It is worth mentioning that WEILER (1933, p. 23 and 1938, p. 8) reported the species Carcharias acutissima as Odontaspis acutissima, therefore its presence seems to be supported.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF77F4BFD826ED3FE20FDA1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF67F4BFDF76846FEE0FB1D.text	547FC451FFF67F4BFDF76846FEE0FB1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carcharias undefined-2	<div><p>Carcharias sp. 2</p><p>(Figs 31–33)</p><p>Referred material: 8 teeth (V.61.866., VER 2016.3424., VER 2016.3439.).</p><p>Remarks: Most teeth of this morphogroup are very poorly preserved. The most completely preserved tooth (V.61.866.) is similar to the first morphogroup in size, but in contrast to the teeth of Carcharias sp. 1, the main crown is more robust, labiolingually wider at the base, and both faces are more convex to the tip. One cusplet is preserved which is similar to those of Carcharias sp. 1 in being pointed and having flattened edges, but while the cusplets are simply bent both mesiodistally and labiolingually on Carcharias sp. 1, the only preserved cusplet of Carcharias sp. 2 is weakly sigmoid.</p><p>The lingual face of the main crown is smooth all along, no striation is present. According to HOVESTADT &amp; HOVESTADT-EULER (2010), this feature assigns this tooth with uncertain affinities to the species Carcharias gustrowensis (Winkler, 1875) . This species was widely distributed in the North Sea Basin during the Late Oligocene and the Early to Middle Miocene (REINECKE et al. 2014).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF67F4BFDF76846FEE0FB1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF67F4BFD8F6ED3FC56F9E4.text	547FC451FFF67F4BFD8F6ED3FC56F9E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Odontaspididae Muller et Henle 1839	<div><p>Odontaspididae indet.</p><p>Referred material: 106 teeth (V.61.667A-E., V.61.672D., V.61.736., V.61.737., V.61.811., V.63.691., V.63.695., V.61.820., V.61.829., V.61.838., V.61.842., V.61.848., V.61.881., VER 2016.3407., VER 2016.3412., VER 2016.3415., VER 2016.3417., VER 2016.3420., VER 2016.3430., VER 2016.3432., VER 2016.3433., VER 2016.3440.).</p><p>Remarks: These teeth are too fragmentary for closer identification, however, there are many of them. Various tooth positions are represented. Most of them consist only of the main crown, or elongated, sigmoid enamel-fragments. The qualitative damages of these teeth could have been caused by the oxidization of the pyrite and/or during the transportation of the material.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF67F4BFD8F6ED3FC56F9E4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFF47F49FE736B63FC00FA60.text	547FC451FFF47F49FE736B63FC00FA60.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carcharoides catticus (Philippi 1846)	<div><p>Carcharoides catticus (Philippi, 1846)</p><p>(Figs 34–36)</p><p>1846 Otodus catticus n. sp. – PHILIPPI, p. 24, pl. 2, figs 5–7.</p><p>1933 Lamna cattica Philippi – WEILER, p. 24, text-fig. 13.</p><p>1999 Carcharoides catticus (Philippi, 1846) – MÜLLER, pl. 3, figs 9–12.</p><p>2005 Carcharoides catticus (Philippi, 1846) – REINECKE et al., pp. 28–30, pl. 19, figs 3–6.</p><p>2007 Carcharoides catticus (Philippi, 1851) – KOCSIS, p. 33, figs 5.1–5.3.</p><p>2014 Carcharoides catticus (Philippi, 1846) – REINECKE et al., p. 20, pl. 20, figs 1–6.</p><p>Referred material: 15 teeth (VER 2016.3414., VER 2016.3419., VER 2016.3428., VER 2016.3431., VER 2016.3445., VER 2016.3446., VER 2016.3450.).</p><p>Remarks: The teeth are very characteristic, and easy to identify. The main crown is pointed on all files, it bears no striation or any other kind of ornamentation. Anteriors and lower laterals have narrow, straight main crown, but those of upper laterals are triangular, and distally bent (Figs 34–36). The main crown of upper laterals is strongly flattened, only the lingual surface shows weak convexity. The lateral cusplets are relatively big, they are narrow and pointed on anteriors and lower laterals, while labiolingually flattened, triangular on upper laterals (the lateral cusplets of the anterior and lower lateral files are usually circular in cross- section). The carinae of the main crown are smooth all along, they often run down to the root-crown boundary (sometimes the carinae of the main crown are continuous with the flattened edges of the lateral cusplets; see VERWEY 2013; fig. 4). The root is bifurcated, flattened, its lingual side bears a central bulge with a transversal groove. The anteriors and lower laterals have symmetrical root, while the distals and upper laterals have asymmetrical root.</p><p>C. catticus specimens from the Kiscell Clay are mostly fragmentary, only a few of them have some portions of the root, or the lateral cusplets preserved. According to REINECKE et al. (2014), the reports on the Rupelian presence of the species in the Buda Hills (WEILER 1933, 1938; FÖLDVÁRY 1988) is one of the oldest records of the species. C. catticus is thought to be a neritic, medium sized form. The species has been reported from Western Africa and Europe, from the middle Oligocene to the middle Miocene (CAPPETTA 1987), however, exceptional Eocene reports are also known (OTERO et al. 2012, 2013).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFF47F49FE736B63FC00FA60	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFEB7F56FE1D6B3EFE00FA60.text	547FC451FFEB7F56FE1D6B3EFE00FA60.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Isurolamna gracilis (Le Hon 1871)	<div><p>Isurolamna gracilis (Le Hon, 1871)</p><p>(Figs 37–44)</p><p>1871 Oxyrhina gracilis n. sp. – LE HON, p. 11, text-fig. 2.</p><p>1933 Lamna rupeliensis Le Hon – WEILER, p. 24, text-fig. 12.</p><p>1993 Lamna rupeliensis (Le Hon, 1871) – BAUT, p. 4, figs 8–9.</p><p>2001 Isurolamna gracilis (Le Hon, 1871) – REINECKE et al., pp. 21–23, pls 31, 32 (with fig. b), 33, 34. 2005 Isurolamna gracilis (Le Hon, 1871) – REINECKE et al., p. 30, pl. 20, figs 4–6.</p><p>2012 Isurolamna gracilis (Le Hon, 1871) – CAPPETTA, p. 217, fig. 202.</p><p>Referred material:5teeth(VER2016.3416., VER2016.3427.,VER2016.3436., VER 2016.3437., VER 2016.3438.).</p><p>Remarks: The crown is pointed and triangular, slender and narrow on lower files (Figs 37–39), while labiolingually and mesiodistally wide at the base on uppers. Both faces are smooth, the cutting edges are smooth all along, in continuing in the edges of the flattened lateral cusplets both mesially and distally. The lateral cusplets are low, typically rounded, or triangular, and pointed. On the lingual side the root bears a wide, convex crest, runs mesiodistally between the lateral cusplets, under the root-crown boundary. The root has two large, flattened lobes, with a visual nutritive groove in the middle. The lobes are angled on their mesial and distal edges. The anterior teeth are typically straight (or nearly straight), while the laterals and distals have distally directed main crown (Figs 40–44). Teeth of upper and lower jaw are easily distinguishable due to the dignathic heterodonty.</p><p>We assign a possible relation to I. gracilis, since the presence of lateral cusplets is not typical for Isurus oxyrinchus (reported from the Chattian of Germany; REINECKE et al. 2005, 2014). Hopefully later on more better preserved Kiscell Clay specimens of this species are going to be re-discovered in museum collections.</p><p>WEILER (1933, p. 24, text-fig. 12) reported and figured I. gracilis as Lamna rupeliensis from the Kiscellian of Budapest, but his figured specimen seems to be lost. However, other specimens have been found in the HNHM collection, labelled as Lamna rupeliensis, but these remains are fragmentary, and do not give any additional information to our description.</p><p>During the Rupelian Isurolamna gracilis was the predominant lamnid shark (REINECKE et al. 2014).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFEB7F56FE1D6B3EFE00FA60	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFE97F54FD866B0BFE93FD96.text	547FC451FFE97F54FD866B0BFE93FD96.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lamnidae Muller et Henle 1838	<div><p>Lamnidae indet.</p><p>Referred material: 70 teeth (V.61.672A., V.61.779., V.61.813., V.61.826., V.61.845., V.61.852., V.61.875., VER2016.3397., VER2016.3398., VER2016.3408., VER 2016.3409., VER 2016.3413., VER 2016.3421., VER 2016.3422., VER 2016.3423., VER 2016.3434.).</p><p>Remarks: These teeth are rootless, mostly broken crowns. They represent various sizes and tooth positions, however, they are too fragmentary for closer identification.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFE97F54FD866B0BFE93FD96	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFE97F52FEC568D5FE93FDA1.text	547FC451FFE97F52FEC568D5FE93FDA1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otodus (Carcharocles) angustidens (Agassiz 1843)	<div><p>Otodus (Carcharocles) angustidens (Agassiz, 1843)</p><p>(Figs 45–50)</p><p>1843 Carcharodon angustidens n. sp. – AGASSIZ, p. 255, pl. 28, figs 20–25, pl. 30, fig. 3.</p><p>1933 Carcharodon angustidens var. turgidus Ag. – WEILER, p. 25, pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 3, fig. 2.</p><p>1933 Carcharodon angustidens Ag. – WEILER, p. 26, pl. 3, fig. 3.</p><p>1993 Carcharocles angustidens (Agassiz, 1843) – BAUT, p. 5, figs 12–15.</p><p>1999 Carcharocles angustidens (Agassiz, 1843) – BAUT &amp; GÉNAULT, pp. 25–26, figs 12–13, pl. 4, fig. 11.</p><p>1999 Carcharocles angustidens (Agassiz, 1843) – MÜLLER, p. 39, pl. 4, figs 7, 9, 11–13.</p><p>2001 Carcharocles angustidens (Agassiz, 1843) – REINECKE et al., pp. 19–20, pls 28–30.</p><p>2005 Carcharocles angustidens (Agassiz, 1843) – REINECKE et al., pp. 35–36, pl. 20, figs 7–9.</p><p>2013 Otodus angustidens (Agassiz, 1835) – SCHULTZ, pp. 75–76, pl. 5, figs 14a, b.</p><p>2014 Otodus (Carcharocles) sp. – REINECKE et al., p. 23, pl. 22, fig. 2.</p><p>Referred material: 50 teeth (V.61.668., V.61.733., V.61.751., V.61.778., V.61.798., V.61.823., V.61.827., V.61.833., V.61.837., V.61.846., V.61.850., V.61.851., V.61.859., V.61.888., V.61.900., V.61.906., V.81.138., VER 2016.3399., VER 2016.3400., VER 2016.3401., VER 2016.3402., VER 2016.3403., VER 2016.3404., VER 2016.3405., VER 2016.3406., VER 2016.3426.) .</p><p>Remarks: The teeth have triangular, labiolingually straight crown with serrated mesial and distal carinae. The root is wide, massive, and bifurcated. The teeth bear 1–1 lateral cusplets both mesially and distally. The cusplets are variable in shape, and they have also visually serrated carinae. The anterior teeth are symmetrical, while the anterior-lateral-distal teeth show asymmetrical contour in labiolingual view. The species has been reported from other Early Oligocene localities around Europe (see BAUT &amp; GÉNAULT 1999; REINECKE et al. 2001). The species of this genus are among the currently known biggest macropredator sharks ever lived. This species must have been the top predator of the local fauna.</p><p>In 1933, Weiler figured a tooth from the Kiscell Clay under the name Carcharodon angustidens (WEILER 1933, pl. 3, fig. 3; also Fig. 50 of this work). The identification done by Weiler was absolutely correct, however, since 1933 the species has been re-classified several times. Following CAPPETTA (2012) the actual name of the species is Otodus (Carcharocles) angustidens . The specimen was found in the collection of the HNHM (re-inventoried as VER 2016.3403.), with some damages on the root (see Figs 48–49). The specimen figured by WEILER (1933) bears all important features of lower anterior teeth. The cutting edges and the root are damaged, however, the condition of the tooth did not change much since the first publication of Weiler. The tooth is easy to identify by the serrations on the only preserved lateral cusplet and the missing sections of the cutting edges.</p><p>Dozens of other specimens are placed in the collection of the HNHM, some of them are more or less complete, or at least complete enough for taxonomic identification.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFE97F52FEC568D5FE93FDA1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFEF7F53FE6C689EFBDDFD12.text	547FC451FFEF7F53FE6C689EFBDDFD12.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alopias exigua (Probst 1879)	<div><p>Alopias cf. exigua (Probst, 1879)</p><p>(Figs 51–60)</p><p>1879 Oxyrhina exigua n. sp. – PROBST, p. 135, pl. 2, figs 20–25.</p><p>1938 Isurus leptodon Ag. (= Isurus gracilis Le Hon.) – WEILER, pp. 7–8, pl. 1, fig. 17.</p><p>1999 Alopias exigua (Probst, 1879) – BAUT &amp; GÉNAULT, p. 27, pl. 7, figs 8–10.</p><p>2001 Alopias exigua (Probst, 1879) – REINECKE et al., pp. 23–24, pl. 35.</p><p>2007 Alopias exigua (Probst, 1879) – KOCSIS, pp. 34–35, figs 5.13–5.14.</p><p>2013 Alopias exigua (Probst, 1879) – SCHULTZ, p. 38, pl. 4, figs 15a, b.</p><p>2014 Alopias aff. exigua (Probst, 1879) – REINECKE et al., pp. 23–27, pls 23, 24, pl. 25, figs 1–6.</p><p>Referred material: 4 teeth (V.61.840., V.61.853., VER 2016.3410., VER 2016.3451.).</p><p>Remarks: The teeth have narrow crown with bifurcated root. The crown is weakly curved labiolingually, it is smooth, and bears no striations. The lingual face is strongly, while the labial is weakly convex. The cutting edges are smooth all along, they usually do not reach the root-crown boundary (KOCSIS 2007). The enamel continues towards the root lobes in forming a well-developed enamel shoulder (Figs 53, 57, 60). This shoulder is wide and it weakly overhangs the root on the labial side (Figs 52, 56, 59). The two root lobes typically form a squared to C-like shape in labiolingual view. A well-developed nutritive groove can be seen on the lingual face of the root. No lateral cusplets are present. While the anteriors are typically straight, the laterals curve distally. The visual sinuouslike curvature of the mesial cutting edge of the distals (especially of the upper distals) is typical feature.</p><p>WEILER (1938, pl. 1, fig. 17; also Fig. 54 of this work) figured a tooth as Isurus leptodon . One Kiscell Clay shark tooth of the HNHM collection is labelled as Isurus lepdonon (VER 2016.3451., Figs 51–53; most probably misspelled while cataloguing), and three others (V.61.840., V.61.853., VER 2016.3410.) have been found with similar morphology. The visual enamel-shoulder, the overhanging crown-enamel on the lingual side, and the shape of the root are all can be seen on the specimens, therefore, they are identified as possible remains of Alopias exigua . Weiler’s illustration is not detailed enough and drawn in a strange angle (Fig. 54), still it shows some resemblance to VER 2016.3451. Because this specimen was found among other Kiscell Clay specimens of Weiler, and also catalogued as I. leptodon (misspelled, as Isurus lepdonon), therefore it might be the illustrated tooth of Weiler (see Figs 51–54).</p><p>The genus is known from the Eocene, the species itself has been reported from the Early Oligocene to the Middle Miocene (CAPPETTA 1987). Nowadays, three nominal species of thresher sharks live, these are A. pelagicus, A. superciliosus, and A. vulpinus (POLLERSPÖCK &amp; STRAUBE 2016) . These sharks live in pelagic waters, and A. superciliosus prefers deep waters (CAPPETTA 2012).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFEF7F53FE6C689EFBDDFD12	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
547FC451FFEC7F5FFE50689EFCC2FD3E.text	547FC451FFEC7F5FFE50689EFCC2FD3E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Physogaleus latus (Storms 1894)	<div><p>Physogaleus latus (Storms, 1894)</p><p>(Figs 69–73)</p><p>1894 Protogaleus latus n. sp. – STORMS, p. 78, pl. 6, figs 17a-c.</p><p>1938 Eugaleus latus Ler. – WEILER, p. 8, pl. 1, figs 10, 11.</p><p>1938? Physodon contortus G. var. hassiae Jkl. – WEILER, p. 8, pl. 1, figs 19, 20.</p><p>1996 Physogaleus latus (Storms, 1894) – MÜLLER, pp. 39–40, pl. 1, figs 3a-c, 7a-b.</p><p>1999 Physogaleus latus (Storms, 1894) – MÜLLER, pp. 52–53, pl. 6, figs 1–4.</p><p>2001 Physogaleus latus (Storms, 1894) – REINECKE et al., pp. 30–32, pls 46–49.</p><p>2010 Physogaleus latus (Storms, 1874) – HOVESTADT et al., p. 60, figs 15–28.</p><p>2014 Physogaleus latus (Storms, 1894) – REINECKE et al., pp. 34–35, pls 31–34.</p><p>Referred material: 3 teeth (V.61.761., VER 2016.3435., VER 2016.3448.)</p><p>Remarks: The dentition of Physogaleus has dignathic and gradient monognathic heterodonty (REINECKE et al. 2014). The anteriors are nearly as high as wide, while the lateral-distal teeth are wider than high. The mesial cutting edge is often serrated basally, and the serration vanishes from the half of the mesial cutting edge to the tip. The distal enamel shoulder has stronger serrations. The upper anterolaterals have a convex mesial cutting edge, while that of the lower anterolateral teeth is straight or weakly concave. The root is wide and low, it runs mesiodistally and bears a visual transversal groove. The species has been also reported by BAUT &amp; GÉNAULT (1999), HOVESTADT &amp; HOVESTADT-EULER (2010), HOVESTADT et al. (2010), and REINECKE et al. (2001, 2014).</p><p>Weiler also mentioned and figured another species, Physodon contortus G. var. hassiae Jkl. (1938, pl. 1, figs 19–20; also Fig. 69 of this work), which unfortunately was not found in the HNHM collection. Comparing this illustration with other faunas (e.g., REINECKE et al. 2014) it is highly possible that this specimen belongs to P.latus and represents an upper anterolateral tooth.</p><p>Another upper anterolateral tooth figured by WEILER (1938, pl. 1, fig. 10; also Fig. 71 of this work) has features typical for upper anterolaterals of the species. We suggest that specimen VER 2016.3448. (Fig. 70) is Weiler’s figured one, since it was found among other specimens of Weiler, and the preserved portions and size are the same. The major portion of the root and the serrated basal part of the mesial cutting edge are missing, but the first two serrations of the distal shoulder are preserved. The crown is wide, and shows a convex mesial cutting edge.</p><p>The lower anterolateral (V.61.761.; Figs 72–73) is sitting on a small piece of clay-matrix in labial aspect. A handwritten label (“ Eugaleus latus Ler. Taf. I Fig. 11 ”) was found under the specimen, which shows that this is one of Weiler’s figured ones (see WEILER 1933, pl. 1, fig. 11; also Fig. 73 of this work). Except some cracks, this tooth is in nearly perfect condition.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/547FC451FFEC7F5FFE50689EFCC2FD3E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Szabó, Márton;Kocsis, László	Szabó, Márton, Kocsis, László (2016): A preliminary report on the Early Oligocene (Rupelian, Kiscellian) selachians from the Kiscell Formation (Buda Mts, Hungary), with the re-discovery of Wilhelm Weiler’s shark teeth. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 33: 31-64, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2016.33.31, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2016.33.31
