taxonID	type	description	language	source
03BF87D61672FF9A6097FF52FC39FD23.taxon	materials_examined	Material – Isolated teeth, mandibular fragments, postcranials and postcranial fragments. The remains were found in all layers of the sequence of the locality but they are especially abundant in layers 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the most abundant in layer 5. From here we counted the postcranials and the result was more than 20,000 remains (mainly small fragments). We estimated the amount of the Lepus remains at about 80 percent of that. On the basis of the whole calcanei and distal fragments of ulnae they belonged to more than 20 individuals. The isolated teeth from this layer gave similar result (at least 19 individuals). Remarks – Although the species was described by KRETZOI (1956) only in a footnote the species name is valid and the whole leporid material from Somssich Hill 2 represents this species (Chiara Angelone, pers. comm.).	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D61672FF9D6095FCEFFE55FCE2.taxon	description	(Figs 2 – 5) Material – Layer 5: Deciduous upper incisivus fragment, vertebra caudalis; caninus fragment; 2 phalanges II (V. 82.105); – Phalanx I; right M 1 fragment (V. 82.95) (Figs 2 – 3). Layer 6: Right P 3 fragment (V. 82.110). Layer 12: Right P 4 fragment (V. 84.16). Layer 19: Phalanx II distal fragment (VER 2018.2617.). Layer 21: Left MC II, os pisiforme; 2 MC IV fragments; metapodium distal fragment; right MC I; left MC I distal fragment; phalanx I; 2 phalanx I proximal fragments; 2 anterior phalanges II; 2 posterior phalanx II; posterior phalanx II proximal fragment; 2 anterior phalanges III; posterior phalanx III (VER 2018.2631.); – Right MT V; 2 metapodium fragments; right MC V and MC IV (in one piece); 2 phalanges I, 2 phalanx I fragments; 2 anterior phalanges II; posterior phalanx II, posterior phalanx II distal fragment; 4 phalanges III; left astragalus (VER 2018.2633.). Layer 22 b: Deciduous upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2626.). Layer 34: Left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2659.) (Fig. 4). Layer 35: Deciduous caninus fragment (VER 2018.2650.); – Left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2651.). Layer 41: Left M 1 (VER 2018.2683.) (Fig. 5). Remarks – The taxonomic status of the Canis mosbachensis is rather uncertain or more exactly it’s a subject of debate (ROOK & TORRE 1996; CHERIN et al. 2014). Some authors think this species to be a synonym of C. arnensis or C. etruscus, in some papers we can find the expression “ Canis arnensis advanced form ” for similar remains. We agree with those authors who think C. mosbachensis is a valid species name and this species is a transitional form between C. etruscus and C. lupus and a possible ancestor of the latter. One of the main characteristics of C. mosbachensis is its clearly smaller size than that of C. lupus but it is larger than that of C. arnensis. As the wolf remains from Somssich Hill 2 are rather scanty, the size was the most important differential characteristics in their identification. The measurements of M 1 and upper canine from Somssich Hill 2 fit well but these are a bit larger than C. mosbachensis from Pirro Nord in PETRUCCI et al. (2013). They are clearly smaller than those of the recent C. lupus and C. mosbachensis from the Middle Pleistocene localities of Vértesszőlős and Tarkő (both localities are in Hungary), but very similar to the C. mosbachensis remains from Gombaszög (early Middle Pleistocene, now in Slovakia as Gombasek). Length of M 1: 14.40 mm, width of M 1: 18.09 mm; Length of the crown of the upper canine (VER 2018.2651.): 18.94 mm.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D61675FF9F60CEFC62FBAFFEAC.taxon	description	(Figs 6 – 11, Table 1) Material – Layer 2: Phalanx I fragment; right I 2 (V. 81.25). Layer 3: Phalanx I; 3 phalanges III; scaphoideum; right P 1 (V. 81.68). Layer 4: Left P 3; right P 1 (V. 82.148); – Left radius distal fragment (VER 2018.2611.); – Left tibia distal fragment; phalanx I; 2 phalanges II (VER 2018.2620.); – Left upper caninus; right P 3 (VER 2017.8222.) (Fig. 6). Layer 5: Left M 1 (VER 2018.2614.); – Left I 2; left P 2 (V. 82.105). Layer 6: Left P 1 (V. 82.110). Layer 9: Caninus fragment (V. 83.64). Layer 20: Right I 3 (VER 2018.2618.). Layer 21: Right P 1. Layer 22 b: Left M 1 (VER 2018.2630.) (Fig. 10); – Right M 2; right I 2; upper incisivus (VER 2018.2635.). Layer 24: Vertebra caudalis (VER 2018.2625.). Layer 28: Phalanx I (VER 2018.2623.). Layer 32: Left P 2 (VER 2018.2645.). Layer 35: Right M 1 (VER 2018.2638.); – Right M 2; 2 phalanges I (VER 2018.2640.); – Left and right lower caninus (from the same individual) (VER 2018.2657.); – Right mandible fragment with M 2 (VER 2018.2669.). Layer 36: Right ulna proximal fragment (VER 2018.2643.); – Left lower caninus fragment (VER 2018.2662.). Layer 37: Left mandible fragment with M 1; right M 1 (VER 2018.2641.). Layer 39: Right P 3 fragment; right M 2; right M 3 (VER 2018.2648.). Layer 40: Left mandible with caninus, P 1 - P 4, alveoli of M 1, M 2 (Figs 8 – 9); right upper caninus fragment; phalanx II; left humerus distal fragment and left ulna proximal fragment of the same individual (VER 2018.2678.). Layer 41: MC III distal fragment; left upper caninus (VER 2018.2666.) (Fig. 7); – Left M 1; left P 4 (VER 2018.2676.). Layer 42: Right mandible fragment with P 3 - M 1; left mandible fragment with the alveolus of P 2, stumps of P 3 and P 4, M 1; right M 1; left calcaneus; right astragalus; 2 right mandibula fragments (VER 2018.2679.). Layer 43: Right dP 2; right dP 3 fragment (VER 2018.2675.); – Right I 2 (VER 2018.2687.); – Right maxilla fragment with P 4 and alveoli of P 2 and P 3 (VER 2018.2691.). Layer 44: Right maxilla fragment with M 1 (Fig. 11); right dP 3, right dP 3, left dP 4 fragment (VER 2018.2682.). Layer 47: Left ulna proximal fragment (VER 2018.2684.). Remarks – The fox remains from Somssich Hill 2 are rather small, according to DE BONIS et al. (2007) the measurements of M 1 - s fall into the Vulpes praecorsac Kormos, V. alopecoides Major, and V. vulpes M 1 ranges (Table 1). Compared to V. praeglacialis remains the Somssich Hill 2 fox specimens are clearly smaller. The teeth are narrow. This feature is very similar to V. lagopus, V. vulpes, V. corsac, and V. praecorsac. The canines are narrow. The lower edge of the mandible is almost straight with very little curving. On the P 3 - s the tiny posterior accessory cuspids (which are characteristric of V. alopecoides and V. vulpes) are missing or very vestigial. On the basis of the mentioned characteristics the Somssich Hill 2 foxes can be ranked into Kormos’s species Vulpes praecorsac, for the original description see KORMOS (1932). JÁNOSSY (1999) also identified the remains as V. praecorsac but he described some uncertain arctic fox remains as Alopex sp. However, it seems that all of the Somssich Hill 2 foxes very probably represent only one species.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D61677FF9F633CFE4BFD42FC84.taxon	description	(Fig. 12) Material – Layer 4: Left dI 3 (VER 2017.8222.); – Left deciduous lower caninus fragment (VER 2017.8221.) (Fig. 12). Remarks – The identification of the remains is rather uncertain. Very probably the specimens are Ursus deningeri remains, but on the basis of deciduous teeth the precise identification is impossible.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D61677FF9160B7FC1DFD96FCC4.taxon	description	(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 specimens very 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.). 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 Meles cf. 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 hollitzeri but a bit larger than Meles atavus. They fall into the range of Meles thorali, but the length of the trigonid of the M 1 is 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 atavus so the Somssich Hill 2 badger remains can be ranked into the Meles meles species. According to many authors, some of the above mentioned species names could be used as subspecies of Meles meles because of the highly polimorphic feature of this species (e. g., WOLSAN 2001, PETRUCCI et al. 2013).	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D61678FF9360AAFE8AFBF7FE86.taxon	description	(Fig. 17) Material – Layer 4: Right P 4 (V. 84.16). Layer 5: 2 right M 1 s; left maxilla fragment with P 3 and P 4; left and right P 4 fragments (V. 82.105). Layer 6: Right P 4; right M 1 (VER 2017.8230.). Layer 8: Right mandibula fragment with C, P 2, alveoli of P 3 and P 4; left mandibula fragment with M 1; left maxilla fragment with P 4; right P 4 (V. 83.35). Layer 9: Right mandibula fragment with M 1; left upper caninus (V. 83.53). Layer 10: Phalanx I (V. 83.119). Layer 12: Left M 1 fragment (V. 84.16). Layer 20: Left M 1; premolar fragment (VER 2018.2619.). Layer 32: 2 right mandibula fragments with P 3 - M 2; right mandibula fragment with P 4, M 1 (VER 2018.2663.); – Left P 4 (VER 2018.2646.). Layer 33: Left P 3 (VER 2018.2654.); – Right mandibula fragment with P 3, P 4, M 1 (VER 2018.2655.). Layer 42: Right mandibula fragment with C, P 2 - M 1, M 2 fragment (VER 2018.2680.) (Fig. 17). Layer 43: Left and right P 3; left and right P 4; left and right P 3; left and right P 4; left upper caninus (VER 2018.2672.). Remarks – For the determination of the Somssich Hill 2 small mustelids the main characteristic feature was the size of the remains. On the basis of the length data of the lower first molars (M 1) two size ranges were allowed to distinguish (Table 3), the larger one fits in with the size range of Mustela palerminea, which is a bit smaller than the extant M. erminea and the smaller one fits in with the size range of M. praenivalis, which is a bit smaller than the extant M. nivalis.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167BFF93633CFA3DFEEEF90E.taxon	materials_examined	Material – Layer 2: Phalanx I fragment (V. 81.31). Remarks – In size and morphology the specimen is very similar to the extant Lutra lutra.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167BFF9360DFFEC0FB9CFAC1.taxon	description	(Fig. 18) Material – Layer 4: Left M 1; right P 4 (V. 82.148). Layer 5: Left mandibula fragment with M 1 and alveoli of M 2; right maxilla fragment with C and P 2; left lower caninus; left and right P 4 (V. 82.105). Layer 6: Right P 4; right M 1 (V. 82.110). Layer 8: Right lower caninus (V. 83.22). Layer 15: Left mandibula fragment with P 4 and M 1 (V. 89.37). Layer 33: Right lower caninus (VER 2018.2653.). Layer 34: Right upper caninus (VER 2018.2652.). Layer 37: Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2642.). Layer 39: Right mandibula fragment with P 4 and M 1 (VER 2018.2649.). Layer 41: Left mandibula fragment with P 4, M 1, M 2 and alveoli of P 3 (VER 2018.2664.) (Fig. 18). Layer 43: Right mandibula fragment with M 1 and alveoli of P 4 and M 2; right maxilla fragment with P 4; left P 4 fragment; left lower caninus fragment; left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2671.). Remarks – There are some extremely small sized specimens amongst the least weasel remains. They certainly belonged to adult and not juvenile individuals. These can be identified as remains of an extremely small female, but another possible option if we suppose the presence of a third weasel species, is a dwarf sized one which could be the early representative of the extant least weasel (Mustela nivalis nivalis) or its probable ancestor. Such remains from the Somssich Hill 2 record: Layer 43: Right lower caninus and right upper caninus (VER 2018.2673.). Layer 19: Right humerus fragment; left upper caninus (VER 2018.2616.).	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167AFF9260ECFD40FD80FB9B.taxon	description	(Figs 23 – 25) Material – Layer 4: Left mandibula fragment with M 1 and alveoli of M 2 (VER 2017.8220.) (Figs 23 – 24). Layer 31: Left humerus distal fragment (VER 2018.2661.) (Fig. 25). Remarks – The remains fall into the size range of the extant M. foina but somewhat smaller than the average.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167AFF926322FE8BFD04FDC3.taxon	description	(Figs 19 – 22) Material – Layer 34: Right P 4 (VER 2018.2693.). Layer 35: Left P 4 (Figs 21 – 22); right P 3 (VER 2018.2639.) (Figs 19 – 20). Remarks – The precise identification of the scanty isolated Pannonictis teeth is not possible, but considering their size the specimens probably represent the larger species, Pannonictis pliocaenica Kormos.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167AFF946085FB1DFD9CFC90.taxon	description	(Figs 26 – 32) Material – Layer 2: Phalanx II (V. 81.37). Layer 4: Left femur distal fragment (Fig. 26); right radius distal and proximal fragment; right ulna proximal fragment; right scapula distal fragment; 2 vertebrae caudalis; 3 phalanges I; 4 phalanges II (VER 2018.2612.). Layer 8: Deciduous right lower caninus (V. 83.24) (Figs 27 – 28). Layer 22 b: Caninus fragment (VER 2018.2634.). Layer 36: Vertebra cervicalis (VER 2018.2644.). From mixed deposits: MT III proximal fragment (Figs 29 – 32); phalanx II (VER 2018.2690.). Remarks – The cat remains from Somssich Hill 2 originally were described by JÁNOSSY (1999) as jungle cat (Felis chaus) remains, because the morphology and the measurements are very similar to the latter; however, we have no evidence of the occurrence of this species in early Middle or Early Pleistocene sites. As the Somssich Hill 2 specimens are clearly larger than the recent or the Pleistocene wild cat (Felis silvestris) remains, but there are not any isolated teeth or other cranial remains in the record, we provisionally ranked them into Felis lunensis, which species is also larger than F. silvestris. According to the data of STACH (1961) who published some measurements on F. lunensis and described the Pliocene Felis wenzensis as a new species, it seems that the estimated body size of the Somssich Hill 2 cat is more similar to the larger F. wenzensis than to F. lunensis. However, we can rule out the former species because it is definitely older stratigraphically. F. lunensis together with “ Chaus sp. ” has already been listed by JÁNOSSY (1990) in the faunal list of Somssich Hill 2 but later in JÁNOSSY (1999) only the Felis chaus was described.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167CFF94630AFCECFBC1F9AF.taxon	description	(Figs 35 – 36) Material – Layer 4: Upper caninus fragment (VER 2017.8222.). Layer 8: Juvenile left mandibula fragment with dP 4 (VER 2018.2621.). Layer 22 b: Left and right M 1 fragments (very probably from the same individual) (VER 2018.2627.) (Fig. 35). Layer 24: Phalanx I (from a semiadult individual) (VER 2018.2637.). Layer 28: Left M 1 fragment (VER 2018.2711.) (Fig. 36). Remarks – The dimensions of the Somssich Hill 2 lynx remains fit in with those of the extant Lynx lynx Linnaeus. The length of the only measurable M 1 (VER 2018.2711. – L: 14.68 mm) is very close to Lynx issiodorensis (Croizet & Jobert) from Florence (L: 14.4 mm) (data from PETRUCCI et al. (2013 )), but also rather close to Lynx lynx strandi Kormos (L: 15.23 mm). The latter was mentioned also in JÁNOSSY (1999), but on the one hand it is definitely older than Somssich Hill 2 and on the other hand Kormos’ species is very probably synonymous with L. issiodorensis. It is very probable that the Somssich Hill lynx is L. issiodorensis, however, the scanty material does not allow such precise identification.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167FFF976361FC24FD71FB5B.taxon	description	(Figs 33 – 34) Material – Layer 5: Right I 3 fragment (V. 82.100) (Figs 33 – 34). Remarks – The single incisor remain is unsuitable for sure and precise identification, but its dimensions and the age of the locality suggest that it represents the smaller Homotherium latidens Owen.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167FFF976340FE8AFD09FCA9.taxon	description	(Figs 37 – 42) Material – Layer 8: Left P 3 fragment (V. 83.21) (Figs 37 – 38). Layer 22 b: Right dP 3 fragment (VER 2018.2628.) (Figs 39 – 40); – 2 left deciduous I 3; left deciduous I 2; deciduous upper incisivus; right deciduous I 2; 8 fragments of deciduous teeth (VER 2018.2636.). From mixed deposits: Right anterior phalanx II digiti II (VER 2018.2686.) (Figs 41 – 42). Remarks – The rather scanty and fragmentary material allows only very uncertain identification. On the basis of their dimensions and comparing the Somssich Hill 2 big cat specimens with equivalent specimens of Panthera onca gombaszogensis (Kretzoi) from Gombaszög (Gombasek) one can suppose that the Somssich Hill 2 specimens belong to this species.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167FFF966331FA04FBD8FE86.taxon	description	(Fig. 43) Material – Layer 5: Upper incisivus fragment (VER 2018.2613.). From mixed deposits: Phalanx II distal fragment (VER 2018.2685.) (Fig. 43). Remarks – The remains obviously originated from a small sized horse species, but the scanty material does not allow any certain identification.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167EFF966306FABBFBFBF940.taxon	description	(Fig. 46) Material – Layer 7: Upper molar fragment (VER 2018.2615.). Layer 8: 2 teeth fragments (V. 83.15). Layer 31: Right humerus fragment (VER 2018.2699.) (Fig. 46). Remarks – The remains were described by JÁNOSSY (1999) as Cervus cf. acoronatus, but the very fragmentary specimens do not allow such precise identifications. Their only usable feature is their size on the basis of which the specimens probably belonged to a deer similar in size to Cervus elaphus.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167EFF966351FEF9FDC4FD30.taxon	materials_examined	Material – Layer 2: 2 tooth fragments (V. 81.41). Layer 43: Premolar fragment (VER 2018.2674.).	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167EFF966351FEF9FDC4FD30.taxon	discussion	Remarks – Due to the very fragmentary preservation of the remains their identification is rather uncertain. The only usable feature was the thickness of the enamel of the tooth fragments.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D6167EFF9663FCFCD8FE07FB3D.taxon	description	(Figs 44 – 45) Material – Layer 4: Right dP 2 fragment (V. 82.148) (Figs 44 – 45). Layer 22 b: P 1 (?) fragment (VER 2018.2629.). Remarks – Because of the lack of comparative material of milk dentition from different mammal species the identification of the Somssich Hill 2 Sus sp. remains is very uncertain.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
03BF87D61663FF8B635BFE8AFC93FC24.taxon	description	(Fig. 47) Material – Layer 1: Right M 2 (VER 2017.8232.) (Fig. 47). Layer 2: 2 upper (?) tooth fragments (V. 81.42). Remarks – The roe deer remains from Somssich Hill 2 were identified by JÁNOSSY (1999) as Capreolus suessenbornensis Kahlke but the very poor material is unsuitable for more precise identification than genus level. The dimensions of the Somssich Hill 2 remains fit in with those of C. suessenbornensis, but also with the extant C. capreolus, so any certain determination is impossible. On the basis of the taxonomic evaluation of the macromammal record discussed in the above, we revised the faunal lists of the Somssich Hill 2 locality which were published in JÁNOSSY (1990, 1999) and PAZONYI et al. (2018) (Table 4). An interesting phenomenon that we had to delete two taxa; these are Alces sp. and Macaca sp. Although originally they were listed both in JÁNOSSY (1990) and (1999) we were not able to find such remains neither amongst the inventoried nor amongst the uninventoried material from Somssich Hill 2.	en	Gasparik, Mihály, Pazonyi, Piroska (2018): The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35: 153-178, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2018.35.153, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2018.35.153
