The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change
Gasparik, Mihály
Pazonyi, Piroska
Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica
2018
2019-03-20
35
153
178
3ZDRX
Linnaeus, 1758
Linnaeus
1758
[451,830,927,956]
Mammalia
Mustelidae
Meles
true
Animalia
Carnivora
6
159
Chordata
species
meles
( Figs 13–16, Table 2) Material– Layer 1:Phalanx I (V.81.21). Layer 4:Proximal fragments of a left and a right ulna; right femur fragment ( Fig. 13); left tibia; left tibia distal fragment; right humerus fragment (diaphysis) (the whole tibia belonged to a smaller individual, the other 5 specimensvery probably belonged to the same larger individual) (VER 2018.2610.). Layer 5:MC II (V.82.105). Layer 8:Left lower caninus fragment (V.83.18). Layer 14:Left upper caninus fragment (V.89.4). Layer 15:Left tibia distal fragment; phalanx III (V.89.47). Layer 31:Left dP 4(VER 2018.2692.). Layer 32: Upper incisivus (VER 2018.2647.). Layer 33:Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2656.); – Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2658.); – Left mandibula fragment with M 1; right mandibula fragment with C, P 3, M 1( Figs 14–15) (the specimens belonged to the same individual together with the VER 2018.2656. caninus) (VER 2018.2660.). Layer 39:Left radius distal fragment (VER 2018.2665.). Layer 41:Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2667.); – Left P 4(VER 2018.2677.). Figs 2–16. Carnivoraremains from Somssich Hill 2. – Figs 2–3. Canis mosbachensisSoergelright M 1fragment (V.82.95). – Fig. 2.Lingual view. – Fig. 3.Occlusal view. – Fig. 4. Canis mosbachensisSoergelleft upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2659.), lingual view. – Fig. 5. Canis mosbachensisSoergelleft M 1(VER 2018.2683.), occlusal view. – Fig. 6. Vulpes praecorsacKormosright P (VER 32017.8222.), buccal view. – Fig. 7. Vulpes praecorsacKormosleft upper caninus (VER 2018.2666.), buccal view. – Figs 8–9. Vulpes praecorsacKormosleft mandible fragment (VER 2018.2678.). – Fig. 8.Buccal view. – Fig. 9.Dorsal view. – Fig. 10. Vulpes praecorsacKormosleft M 1(VER 2018.2630.), occlusal view. – Fig. 11. Vulpes praecorsacKormosright maxilla fragment with M 1(VER 2018.2682.), occlusal view. – Fig. 12. Ursussp.left deciduous lower caninus fragment (VER 2017.8221.), buccal view. – Fig. 13. Melescf. melesLinnaeusright femur fragment (VER 2018.2610.), anterior view. – Figs 14–15. Melescf. melesLinnaeusright mandibula fragment (VER 2018.2660.). – Fig. 14.Dorsal view. – Fig. 15.Buccal view. – Fig. 16. Melescf. melesLinnaeusleft humerus fragment (VER 2018.2681.), anterior view. All scale bars = 10 mm Between layer 43 and 50:Left humerus fragment (VER 2018.2681.) ( Fig. 16). From mixed deposits:MT II (VER 2018.2688.). Remarks– The badger remains from Somssich Hill 2 are a bit smaller than the extant Meles meles(very probably that is why JÁNOSSY (1999)described them as Melescf. atavus), but their morphology corresponds with that. Considering Table 2. in PETRUCCI et al. (2013)the measurements of Somssich Hill M 1-s are similar to those of the Pirro Nord specimen ( Table 2). They are smaller than Meles hollitzeribut a bit larger than Meles atavus. They fall into the range of Meles thorali, but the length of the trigonid of the M 1is clearly smaller than that of M. thorali. There is not any accessory cuspid between protoconid and paraconid which cuspid would be a diagnostic feature of Meles atavusso the Somssich Hill 2 badger remains can be ranked into the Meles melesspecies. According to many authors, some of the above mentioned species names could be used as subspecies of Meles melesbecause of the highly polimorphic feature of this species (e.g., WOLSAN 2001, PETRUCCI et al.2013).