identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
F3BC4ABA1DC05500A2B19E3489CE5100.text	F3BC4ABA1DC05500A2B19E3489CE5100.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Progyrolepis heyleri Poplin 1999	<div><p>Progyrolepis cf. heyleri</p><p>Figs 4, 5, 6 B, E, M, P</p><p>Material.</p><p>A fragment of maxilla associated with several isolated scales (MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 [Figs 4 A – F, 6 M]); an isolated tooth (MHNT.PAL.2026.1.5); two associated teeth (MHNT.PAL.2026.1.9 [Fig. 4 G – I]); five postcranial skeletons (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.80 [Fig. 5 A], MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76 [Fig. 5 B, C], MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77 [Fig. 5 D, E], MHNT.PAL.2026.14.71 [Fig. 5 F]); a partial caudal fin (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.75); a ridge scale (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.79); several isolated scales (MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1, MHNT.PAL.2026.1.6 - 7, MHNT.PAL.2026.14.81); a slab containing numerous scattered scales and possibly poorly preserved cranial bones (MHNT.PAL.2026.1.8 [Figs 4 J, 4 K, 6 B, 6 E, 6 P]).</p><p>Description.</p><p>The ornamented bone fragment MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 comes from layer S 4 (Fig. 1 E) and represents a fragment of the posteroventral end of the maxilla. It measures 10.0 mm long and 9.1 mm deep (Fig. 4 A – C). The bone lateral surface displays vermicularly curved ridges that roughly follow the shape of the bone edges and sometimes anastomose. No teeth are visible on the ventral edge of this maxillary fragment.</p><p>The isolated tooth MHNT.PAL.2026.1.5 comes from layer S 3 (Fig. 1 E), while the two associated teeth MHNT.PAL.2026.1.9 come from layer S 4 (Fig. 1 E). MHNT.PAL.2026.1.5 is 2.4 mm high, but its base is broken. The two teeth of MHNT.PAL.2026.1.9 are 26.2 mm apart (Fig. 4 G), the larger measuring 4.7 mm high with a base 1.5 mm long (Fig. 4 I), and the smaller 3.3 mm high with a base 1.3 mm long (Fig. 4 H). These are large conical teeth with a broad base that tapers towards the acrodine cap. The acrodine cap is smooth, but the surface of the ganoine collar has a microsculpture formed by fine protuberances of elliptical shape, proximo-distally elongated.</p><p>Six specimens preserve portions of the body: the five postcranial skeletons MHNT.PAL.2026.14.80 (Fig. 5 A), MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76 (Fig. 5 B, C; two specimens are present on the same slab), MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77 (Fig. 5 D, E), MHNT.PAL.2026.14.71 (Fig. 5 F), and the partial caudal fin MHNT.PAL.2026.14.75. All these specimens come from layer S 4 and show signs of osteological immaturity: poorly ossified thin scales, often altered, highly elongated lepidotrichia segments, and non-ossified areas at the base of the fins. MHNT.PAL.2026.14.80 and MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76 best preserve the posterior part of the body, with complete caudal fins and nearly complete anal fins. MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77 well preserves the anterior flank scales and the anal fin, but the rest of the specimen has a weathered surface where no details are visible. MHNT.PAL.2026.14.71 is the most complete specimen but also the most deteriorated: only its indistinct general shape, along with fragments of scales and lepidotrichia, are visible. The general shape of these specimens is fusiform, and the preserved length of the specimens ranges from 27.6 mm (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.80) to 39.0 mm (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.71), with a maximum depth at the anterior region of the body of 6.5 (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76) to 13.1 mm (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.71). All fins are composed of segmented, dichotomous lepidotrichia with straight sutures (Fig. 5 A – C). The lepidotrichia extending to the anterior edge of the fins are pointed, and numerous short, triangular fringing fulcra are located in the spaces between two terminal lepidotrichia (Fig. 5 C). The terminal lepidotrichia and fringing fulcra do not extend beyond the leading edge of the fin. A fragment of the pelvic fin is preserved in MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77, with four preserved lepidotrichia (Fig. 5 D). The anal fin has a length-to-base ratio of 1.4 (based on MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77), possesses approximately 40 lepidotrichia, and extends over 9–10 scale rows (Fig. 5 A – D). In MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76 and MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77, the anal fin has a base of 6.1 and 5.0 mm, respectively, and a leading edge of 5.5 and 6.8 mm, respectively. The base of the anal fin begins at the midpoint of the dorsal fin (Fig. 5 B). The dorsal fin is known only from MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76, where it has a leading edge of 5.7 mm but its anterior portion is not preserved. Its preserved part possesses approximately 30 lepidotrichia and extends over 7 scale rows (Fig. 5 B). The caudal fin is well-preserved in MHNT.PAL.2026.14.80 and MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76, where it measures 15.9 and 14.6 mm in length, respectively (Fig. 5 A, B). The dorsal lobe is considerably larger than the ventral lobe, with a dorsal lobe / ventral lobe length ratio of 2.5–2.6. However, it is not certain that the ventral lobe is completely preserved on the two available specimens. There are approximately 20 lepidotrichia in the ventral lobe and more than 70 in the dorsal lobe, but an exact count is impossible because not all lepidotrichia are preserved. The lepidotrichia segments at the base of the ventral lobe each have a longitudinal groove, which then extends into a dichotomous division in the distal segments (Fig. 5 C). The scales are quadrangular and arranged in diagonal rows, with the lateral line not visible. Caudal inversion appears gradual, but the scales are not sufficiently well preserved to eliminate ambiguity. The flank scales are approximately as high as long, becoming progressively more elongated posteriorly. The dorsal and ventral scales are longer than deep, and the scales of the caudal peduncle are diamond-shaped. The scales are almost all ornamented with very fine ridges, which sometimes blend into the sutures between the scales (Fig. 5 E). These ridges are slightly diagonal on the anterior flank scales and are directed anteroposteriorly on the more posterior scales. Only the most posterior flank scales and the scales of the caudal peduncle are smooth. The serration of the scales is difficult to observe due to their thinness and indistinct outlines, but is well attested on the anterior flank scales (Fig. 5 A). It gradually decreases in the posterior, ventral, and dorsal regions. The scale count of the specimens is systematically incomplete, but there are approximately 25 scale rows between the pelvic fin and the anal fin (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.77), and 18 scale rows between the anal fin and the caudal fin (MHNT.PAL.2026.14.76). Several specialised scales are distributed in front of the fins. A large ovoid basal fulcrum precedes the base of the anal fin, as long as two scale rows. A pair of flat and slightly smaller basal fulcra are located immediately in front of this basal fulcrum. These three specialised scales are ornamented with ridges that follow their edges (Fig. 5 C). The base of the ventral peduncle of the caudal fin is never sufficiently preserved to determine whether large basal fulcra are present. Elongated triangular fulcral scales cover the top of the caudal peduncle. These fulcral scales are ornamented with slight elongated ridges, and their size gradually decreases posteriorly. The largest fulcral scales appear to be as long as five scale rows.</p><p>The scales found in layers S 3 and S 4 (Fig. 1 E), can be divided into four morphotypes, corresponding to different anatomical positions. The position of these scales is assumed based on Palaeozoic actinopterygians whose entire body is known (Fig. 6 A; e. g., Esin 1990; Štamberg 1991, 2018). The scales’ size varies from to 0.5 to 4 mm in length (Fig. 4 D, E, J, K), a variation linked both to different positions on the body and to individual variations. The close association of these morphotypes with each other on MHNT.PAL.2026.1.8 and with the maxillary fragment on MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 indicates that these scales and maxilla likely belong to a single taxon (Fig. 4 A). An elongated bone fragment is present on MHNT.PAL.2026.1.8 and may represent a dentary (Fig. 4 K); however, its surface is too poorly preserved to confirm this interpretation and no teeth are preserved. Significant ridges of ganoine traverse across the scales and protrude at the posterior border of the scale to form serrations. The number and direction of these ridges also varies depending on the position of the scale on the body. Some scales have an eroded lateral surface, which makes it impossible to see their ornamentation. Peg and socket articulation is well developed on the first two morphotypes.</p><p>The first morphotype corresponds to scales elongated dorsoventrally, located at the front of the body and close to the lateral line: these are the anterior flank scales (region A of Esin [1990]) (Figs 4 K, 6 B). On these scales, all ridges are oriented diagonally and are roughly parallel to each other, including those starting in the anteroventral region of the scale, which terminate at the ventral margin of the scale.</p><p>The second morphotype corresponds to mid-body flank scales (region B of Esin [1990]), which are roughly square-shaped (Figs 4 K, 6 E). These scales are ornamented with ridges running diagonally across them, the longest of which run from the anterodorsal corner to the posteroventral corner of the scale. They divide the lateral surface of the scale into the anteroventral and posterodorsal halves. The arrangement of ridges on the two halves is different. At least four ridges are recognisable on the anteroventral region of the scale, starting diagonally at the anterior margin of the scale and gently curving to become horizontal posteriorly. The posterodorsal half of the scale has few large ridges which start at the anterodorsal corner of the scale, branch posteriorly, and terminate in a dozen diagonal ridges that end at the posterior edge of the scale. This number of ridges decreases as the size of the scale decreases, a decrease that correlates with a more posterior position on the body (in region C of Esin [1990]) (Figs 4 D, 4 K, 6 M).</p><p>The third morphotype corresponds to rectangular scales elongated anteroposteriorly, corresponding to the ventral scales (region F of Esin [1990]) (Figs 4 K, 6 P). Scales located farther from the lateral line and closer to the ventral margin of the body are more elongated. These scales are ornamented with a few horizontal ridges, parallel to or subparallel to the dorsal and ventral edges of the scale. These ridges end posteriorly at the posterior margin of the scale.</p><p>The fourth and final morphotype corresponds to subrectangular to ovoid scales that are slightly elongated anteroposteriorly, identified as dorsal scales (region E of Esin [1990]) (Fig. 4 E, K). They become increasingly ovoid as they approach the dorsal line. These scales do not have peg and socket joints and are ornamented with ridges along the edges. These ridges are curved laterally and become increasingly straight medially: the central ridge crosses the scale horizontally. They end at the posterior edge of the scale.</p><p>The ridge scale MHNT.PAL.2026.14.79 is roughly ovoid with a diameter of 10 mm: its posterior part is straight while the other edges are rounded. It is ornamented with ridges that follow the edge of the scale, forming an inverted V as they approach the centre of the scale. The centre of the scale is crossed by a long ridge running anteroposteriorly.</p><p>Comparisons.</p><p>The combination of a maxillary fragment with a posteroventral process, macrodont teeth and ornamented scales on postcranial skeletons and isolated clearly indicates the presence of a predatory actinopterygian in the Réalmont Basin. Here, we compare the available evidence with other actinopterygians from the Stephano-Permian basins of Europe that may be similar.</p><p>The maxilla MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 is very similar to Progyrolepis spp. In both species of this genus, Progyrolepis speciosus and P. heyleri, the maxilla is ornamented with vermiform ridges that vary in thickness depending on the individual, roughly following the shape of the bone (Štamberg 1991, 2018; Poplin 1999; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). This is the same type of ornamentation in MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1, and a diagnostic character of the genus Progyrolepis (Poplin 1999; Štamberg 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). The absence of teeth on the ventral edge of MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 does not contradict this attribution, as the presence of teeth on the posteroventral process of the maxilla is subject to individual variation in Progyrolepis (Štamberg 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 differs from Briveichthys chantepieorum, in which the posteroventral angle of the maxilla is ornamented with short ridges as well as tubercles (Štamberg and Steyer 2021). This is also the case for Letovichthys tuberculatus, whose maxilla is ornamented only with small tubercles (Štamberg 2007, 2017). It is difficult to compare the ornamentation of the maxilla of Réalmont with that of the maxilla of Zaborichthys fragmentalis, which is described as having a maxilla ornamented with ridges and tubercles, without details on their arrangement (Štamberg 1991). In the elonichthyids Elonichthys germari, ‘ Elonichthys ’ krejci and Meisenheimichthys palatinus (Schindler 1990: 24, figs 17, 19, 58, 2018: 16, fig. 24; Štamberg 1991: fig. 5, 2013, 2016 a), the maxilla is ornamented with short and ridges in the postero-ventral angle and the maxillary plate, with small tubercles along the two anterior thirds of the ventral margin. These ridges follow the bone margins as in Progyrolepis spp. (e. g., Štamberg 2018), but are not vermiform (i. e. the small ridges are spaced apart and disconnected, without a sinuous pattern) and thus differ from the Réalmont maxilla and Progyrolepis spp. For other elonichthyids (sensu Schindler 2018 a), the ornamentation of the maxilla is succinctly to not described, and not figured (e. g., Schindler 2006, 2017, 2018 b: 657). The maxillary ornamentation of the macrodont taxon ‘ Acrolepis ’ gigas is unknown, as only its internal imprint is preserved (Štamberg 1991). As for the igornichthyids, the maxilla is devoid of ornamentation in known specimens (Heyler 1969, 1980; Štamberg 2016 b). Other actinopterygians from the Stephano-Permian basins of Europe (e. g., Amblypteridae, Aeduellidae, Haplolepidae, Trissolepidae) differ from the Réalmont maxilla in that they do not have a developed posteroventral process (e. g., Dietze 2000; Štamberg 2013; Schultze et al. 2021; Gonçalves et al. 2026 a).</p><p>The isolated teeth from Réalmont are conical, large, with ornamented ganoine collar and smooth acrodine cap. These characters are plesiomorphic within actinopterygians and are found in all macrodont taxa from the Stephano-Permian basins of Europe (e. g., Štamberg 1991, 2016 a, 2018, 2020; Schindler 2017, 2018 a, 2018 b; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). The only macrodont teeth that differ from these are those of Stambergichthys macrodens, which have a distinctive mesial cutting edge (Barták et al. 2024). It is not possible to identify a character that would clarify the attribution of the Réalmont teeth, even at the level of microornamentation, which varies individually (e. g., Štamberg 2016 a, 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021).</p><p>The postcranial skeletons from Réalmont have scales ornamented with diagonally oriented ridges running anteroposteriorly, with serrations. This ornamentation is shared only with the macrodont taxa of the Stephano-Permian basins of Europe (e. g., Štamberg 1991, 2018; Schindler 2017, 2018 a, 2018 b; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). The postcranial specimens from Réalmont have scales identical to those found isolated at the locality, but these scales are poorly preserved, with less visible details due to poor ossification. The comparison of the scales is therefore given in the following paragraph and is based primarily on the better-defined characters of the isolated scales. The postcranial skeleton of macrodont taxa of the Stephano-Permian basins of Europe is poorly known: only skull material is known in Progyrolepis speciosus and Zaborichthys fragmentalis (Štamberg 1991), Blanzychthys prorobisoni has never been the subject of a detailed description (e. g., Heyler 2000), the postcranial material of Progyrolepis heyleri and Briveichthys chantepieorum is limited to body fragments (Štamberg 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021), and in elonichthyids, the postcranial anatomy is rarely detailed (e. g., Schindler 2006, 2017, 2018 a, 2018 b). Only the elonichthyid Elonichthys krejci and the indeterminate taxon ‘ Acrolepis ’ gigas have complete and well-described postcranial skeletons (Štamberg 1991). The Réalmont taxon differs from ‘ Acrolepis ’ gigas in that its anal fin base begins at the midpoint of the dorsal fin and not far behind it, that it has a much lower number of scale rows between the anal and caudal fins, and that its dorsal lobe / ventral lobe ratio is much higher (Štamberg 1991). The dorsal lobe / ventral lobe ratio of 2.5–2.6 of the Réalmont taxon distinguishes it from Elonichthys fritschi and E. krejci, which have a lower ratio of 1.2 to 1.5 (Štamberg 1991, 2013; Schindler 2017). It differs from E. krejci and Rhabdolepis saarbrueckensis in that the base of its anal fin is located on a significantly smaller number of scales (Štamberg 1991, 2010). The characters of the Réalmont taxon are similar to those illustrated for Meisenheimichthys palatinus, but its body is less narrow, its fins less developed, and M. palatinus has only one anal basal fulcrum (Schindler 1990, 2007). It cannot be compared with the other valid elonichthyids E. germari, M. breitenheimensis, M. glanensis, and R. macropterus due to insufficient descriptions (Poschmann and Schindler 2004; Schindler 2006, 2018 a, 2018 b). In contrast, the Réalmont taxon shares all the characters described for Progyrolepis heyleri, namely an anal fin based on 9–10 scale rows and beginning at the midpoint of the dorsal fin, approximately 20 scale rows between the anal fin and the caudal fin, a groove on the basal lepidotrichia segments of the ventral lobe, and the same number of basal fulcra anteriorly to the anal fin (Štamberg 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). However, Štamberg and Steyer (2021) report a specimen of P. heyleri with a dorsal lobe / ventral lobe ratio of 1.4, which would distinguish it from the Réalmont taxon. This difference may result from incomplete preservation of the ventral lobe of the Réalmont taxon and / or the specimen described by Štamberg and Steyer (2021), which was not illustrated.</p><p>The ornamentation with ridges on Réalmont scales excludes any affiliation with igornichthyids and a large part of amblypterids and aeduellids, whose scales are smooth or pointed (Heyler 1969; Štamberg 2016 b). The square-shaped flank scales differ from the haplolepids and trissolepids, and the diagonal orientation of the ridges differ from the ornamentation seen in some amblypterids and aeduellids (Heyler 1969; Poplin 1997; Elliott 2014; Štamberg 1991, 2016 a, 2021, 2022; Gonçalves et al. 2026 a). The ornamentation of the Réalmont scales is shared only with the macrodont taxa of the Stephano-Permian basins of Europe. In Progyrolepis spp., the scales are only well known in P. heyleri (Štamberg 2016 a, 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). The latter exhibits all the morphotypes present at Réalmont, with ornamentation identical to that described for each morphotype (Fig. 4 C, F – G, N, Q; Štamberg 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). The scales of Briveichthys chantepieorum are only well known from the dorsal region (Štamberg and Steyer 2021). These scales are identical to those described for this body region in the Réalmont scales. The rest of the scales of B. chantepieorum is too briefly described to be compared in detail (Štamberg and Steyer 2021). Personal observation of new, undescribed specimens seems to indicate that the ornamentation of the scales of B. chantepieorum decreases ventrally, disappearing at the lateral line level (DG pers. obs.). The ventral scales are then smooth, which differs from the ventral scales of Réalmont. The scales of Letovichthys tuberculatus are very different from those of Réalmont: its flank scales are non-serrated, and ornamented with numerous ridges oriented dorsoventrally which sometimes anastomose. These ridges combine with long ridges leading anteroposteriorly on the ventral part of the scale (Fig. 6 L, O; Štamberg 2007, 2014, 2017). The flank scales of ‘ Acrolepis ’ gigas are identical to those of Réalmont and P. heyleri, with the exception of the posterior margins of the scales, which are not serrated (Fig. 6 D, H; Štamberg 1991: pl. XV, figs 1, 2). It should be noted, however, that the available illustrations appear to show that these edges are broken (Fig. 6 D, H; Štamberg 1991: pl. XV, figs 1, 2). The ventral scales of ' A. ' gigas show ridges that are also oriented diagonally and not parallel to the dorsal and ventral edges of the scale (Fig. 6 R; Štamberg 1991: pl. XV, fig. 4). As for the other macrodont taxa, the scales are less well described and often lack illustrations, which limits comparisons. The scales of Zaborichthys fragmentalis are ornamented with ridges ending in denticules (Štamberg 1991), a description that could correspond to any other macrodont taxon. Schindler (2018 a) has listed in detail the characters that distinguish the flank scales of different elonichthyids. Within this family, they all share an ornamentation with diagonally oriented ridges dividing the scales in two (Fig. 6 I – K; e. g., Schindler 2018 a, 2018 b). The posterodorsal ridges end in denticles at the posterior edge of the scale, and the anteroventral ridges are horizontal and anastomose posteriorly (e. g., Štamberg 2007, 2016 a; Schindler 2018 a, 2018 b). This is exactly the same type of ornamentation found in the scales of Réalmont, Progyrolepis heyleri and ‘ Acrolepis ’ gigas (Štamberg 1991, 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021). Elonichthys spp., Meisenheimichthys glanensis and M. palatinus have a posterodorsal region described as being more developed than the anteroventral region (Schindler 2018 a), whereas these regions are of equal size in Rhabdolepis spp. (Schindler 2018 a). However, scales examination of the holotype of E. germari and a specimen of M. palatinus shows an equal division of the two regions of the scale, with a roughly identical number of ridges on both sides, casting doubt on the diagnosis of Schindler (2018 a) (Fig. 6 I, K). The scales of M. breitenheimensis show a less obvious diagonal division, and the ridges appear bulging (Schindler 2018 a). Although potentially valid, as no figures are associated with this description, these characters remain subjective. Schindler (2018 a) indicates that the scales of ‘ E. ’ krejci are distinguished by the splitting of the ridges and the fact that the anteroventral ridges do not reach the posterior edge of the scale. However, these characters are also visible in the scales of E. germari and R. macropterus, and potentially present in other elonichthyids (Fig. 6 J, K). Other characters are used by Schindler (2018 a) to distinguish the scales of elonichthyids, but these relate to the number of ridges or denticles, a number that varies among actinopterygians depending on the position of the scales on the body, and which varies intraspecifically (e. g., Štamberg 2018: p. 267). These characters are therefore not retained here in our comparisons. Ultimately, it seems premature to allow a distinction between the scales of different elonichthyids in the absence of figures illustrating the stated characters and analysis of the variation of these characters within the same individual and within a population. The scales of other regions of the elonichthyid body have never been described in detail, limiting further comparisons, and only a few transitional scales between the flank and ventral scales of E. germari have been illustrated (Fig. 6 S; Štamberg 2016 a: fig. 11 B). These scales are further divided into two regions, with diagonal ridges in the posterodorsal half and horizontal ridges parallel to the ventral edge of the scale in the anteroventral half. It remains to be determined whether the most ventral scales of elonichthyids retain this division, or whether only the horizontal ridges persist, as in P. heyleri and the Réalmont scales. Based on current knowledge, the flank scales of Réalmont cannot be distinguished from those of elonichthyids.</p><p>The actinopterygian specimens from Réalmont all show affinities with the macrodont taxa of the Stephanian-Permian of Europe. The maxilla display the diagnostic ornamentation of the genus Progyrolepis and differ from that of other taxa with which it has been possible to compare them. The scales, belonging to the same taxon, are identical to those of Progyrolepis heyleri and cannot be compared in detail with P. speciosus . These scales are also virtually identical to those of elonichthyids, although this only applies to the flank scales. It is possible that the other scale morphotypes are different, as is the case for ‘ Acrolepis ’ gigas. Comparison of postcranial specimens is limited by poor knowledge of macrodont taxa, but it appears clear that the Réalmont taxon is virtually identical to P. heyleri – but cannot be compared to P. speciosus . The only area of uncertainty concerns the proportions of the caudal fin lobes, which may result from preservation bias. Taken together, the maxilla and scales bear characters that allow them to be unambiguously attributed to Progyrolepis spp. Within this genus, P. speciosus is restricted to the Bohemian Massif, while P. heyleri is restricted to the French Massif Central (Štamberg 1991, 2013, 2018; Štamberg and Steyer 2021; Gonçalves et al. 2026 b). It is therefore likely that the Réalmont material belongs to P. heyleri . However, only the discovery of diagnostic elements of P. heyleri that allow it to be differentiated from P. speciosus will confirm this. We therefore cautiously assign the Réalmont remains to Progyrolepis cf. heyleri . Reconstructed from the maxilla of P. heyleri, MHNT.PAL.2026.1.1 would measure approximately 45.0 mm in length (Fig. 3 F), implying a total body length of between 30 and 40 cm. The scales of MHNT.PAL.2026.1.8 are of the same size order, while postcranial skeletons and isolated scales (e. g., MHNT.PAL.2026.1.3, MHNT.PAL.2026.1.7) indicates the presence of smaller, skeletally immature individuals. The teeth described here have no diagnostic characters and cannot be linked to a particular taxon. The presence of a single macrodont taxon in layers S 3 and S 4 of the Cantemerle Formation, matching size and their similarity to the teeth already described for P. heyleri lead us to provisionally assign these teeth to the same taxon.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F3BC4ABA1DC05500A2B19E3489CE5100	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	Gonçalves, Daniel;Delsahut, Bernard;Hamann, Christopher;Rebillard, Arnaud	Gonçalves, Daniel, Delsahut, Bernard, Hamann, Christopher, Rebillard, Arnaud (2026): New palaeontological remains from the early Permian Réalmont Basin (Tarn, France): implications for late-Variscan palaeobiogeography and Progyrolepis taxonomy (Actinopterygii). Fossil Record 29 (2): 469-497, DOI: 10.3897/fr.29.197176
