identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
527887ECFF841D6F0F41F90298E7FA6E.text	527887ECFF841D6F0F41F90298E7FA6E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spermophilinus besana Cuenca-Bescos 1988	<div><p>Spermophilinus besana Cuenca-Bescos, 1988</p><p>(Figs 2–5)</p><p>Description – D4 – Subtriangular outline, protuberant anterocone, strong and cingulum-like mesostyle, which closes the labial border of the central valley. High-developed transversal protoloph, lower developed oblique metaloph, which is connected to the protocone.</p><p>P4 – Ovoid outline, the anterocone is not so protuberant as the same structure in D4. The other morphological characters are similar to the deciduous upper premolar.</p><p>M1–2 – Subquadrat outline. Three cusps (protocone, metacone, paracone) and four lophs (anteroloph, protoloph, metaloph, posteroloph). All the lophs are connected to the protocone but this connection is weaker in the case of metaloph. The anteroloph is connected to the basis of the protocone in a low level. Three lophs are transversally directed, the lingual end of the metaloph is oblique. Anteroloph and posteroloph are less developed than protoloph and metaloph. Small mesostyle developed, which is connected to the paracone. Three closed sinuses (anterosinus, central sinus, posterosinus). Anterosinus and central sinus are elliptic, the posterosinus is narrow and its lingual end is anteriorly curved. The occlusal surface of M2 is wider than M1.</p><p>M3 – Subtriangular outline. Two cusps (the large protocone and a smaller, but higher paracone) and two lophs (anteroloph and protoloph). The anteroloph runs between the anterior bases of the two cusps. Protoloph is developed between the centres of these cusps. Anteroloph is lower developed. A narrow, transversal anterosinus is surrounded by the two lophs. A large central sinus is surrounded by the semicircular posteroloph. Special feature of the M3 from Litke 2 is the presence of a short metaloph (Fig. 3).</p><p>p4 – Trapezoidal outline. Posterior part is broader than the anterior one. Four main cusps: protoconid, metaconid, anteroconid and hypoconid. The largest part of the occlusal surface is occupied by the large central basin. The posterolophid forms a continuous arch in the posterior and lingual margin of the molar from the hypoconid to the metaconid. The posterolingual angle is rounded.</p><p>m1–2 – Rhomboidal outline. Three main cusps: protoconid, metaconid and hypoconid. Anteroconid is small (2 out of 7 specimens) or missing (5/7). The posteroloph is continuous from the hypoconid to the metaconid. The posterolingual corner is rounded. The anterolophid is connected to the metaconid. The anterolophid-protoconid connection is variable: it is developed (4/7), ore those are divided by a narrow trench (1/7). The mesoconid is ridge-like, not so voluminous as the same cusp in S. bredai m1–2 molars from Felsőtárkány 3/2 locality. The metalophids are short (2/7) or missing (1/7). It reaches the anterolophid in specimen 2013.65. In this molar the protoconid, the metaconid, the anterolophid and the metalophid close a small basin. m2 is wider than m1.</p><p>m3 – Subtriangular outline, posteriorly narrowed. Three main cusps: protoconid, metaconid and hypoconid. Entoconid is incipient, only thickening of the posterolophid. Anterolophid-protoconid connection is developed (2013.66., 2013.69.), or there is a trench in the lingual side of the protoconid (2013.58.). The metalophid is missing (2013.58.) or short (2013.66., 2013.69.). Mesoconids are better developed than the same cuspulas in the m1–2.</p><p>Comments – Other species of the Spermophilinus genus: S. bredai (Von Meyer, 1848); S. turolensis de Bruijn et Mein, 1968; S. giganteus de Bruijn et al., 1970; S. minutus Shaohua et Li, 1982 . The distinction between S. besana and S. bredai is difficult and based on the dimensions and minor morphological characters. These morphological differences are listed by CUENCA-BESCOS (1988)and can be seen in Table 2.</p><p>ZIEGLER (2005) observed that these characters are difficult to use because of the high intraspecific variability. RUIZ-SANCHEZ et al. (2013) has shown that the development of the mesoconids of the lower molars is useful for the distinction. This method also seems to be applicable to the Hungarian material, because the mesoconids are less developed and ridge-like in the m1–2 from Litke, but well developed in the other Middle Miocene S. bredai samples (e.g. Hasznos, Sámsonháza, Felsőtárkány 3/2).</p><p>S. besana is regarded as an immigrant in Europe by DE BRUIJN (1998). He pointed out the first appearance in MN4, which is simultaneous or somewhat later than the arrival of Democricetodon . According to his opinion S. besana and D. franconicus are both of Asiatic origin and represent the same migration wave.</p><p>CUENCA-BESCOS (1988) described the presence of S. besana from the base of the Aragonian (local zone B) to the middle part of the Middle Aragonian (local zone D). The transition of S. besana – S. bredai took place during the time interval of the local zone D that refers to the middle part of the MN5 zone (RUIZ SANCHEZ et al. 2013). AGUILAR et al. (2010) described S. aff. bredai from the MN4 - MN5 transitional fauna of Blanquatére 1, although the published dimensions refer to S. besana .</p><p>In Switzerland Spermophilinus sp. primarily appeared in the fauna of Glovelier (MN4a) with Democricetodon franconicus . S. besana was not mentioned in the Swiss MN5 faunas, only Spermophilinus sp. or Spermophilinus aff. bredai were listed by KÄLIN &amp; KEMPF (2009). Litke is the only known occurrence of the species in the Carpathian Basin.</p><p>A size increase of the Spermophilinus M1–2 through time is observed by DE BRUIJN (1995), but this size increase should not be used in fine biostratigraphical context. The mean dimensions of some selected Central European populations are given in a scatter diagram by HÍR et al. (2011, Figure 5).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF841D6F0F41F90298E7FA6E	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF811D6E0C9FFA0298FEFD13.text	527887ECFF811D6E0C9FFA0298FEFD13.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Palaeosciurus sutteri Ziegler et Fahlbusch 1986	<div><p>Palaeosciurus sutteri Ziegler et Fahlbusch, 1986</p><p>(Fig. 6)</p><p>Description – Senile, worned specimen with broken hypoconid. The anterolophid does not reach the protoconid. The metalophid reaches the anterolophid in the middle part. Entoconid and mesolophid are incipient. Smooth enamel.</p><p>Comments – Other species of the Palaeosciurus genus: P.gothi Vianey-Liaud, 1974 (Oligocene); P. feignouxi Pomel, 1853 (MN 2); P.fissurae Dehm, 1950 (MN 3); P. ultimus Mein et Ginsburg, 2002 (MN 7/8). P. gothi, P. feignouxi and P.fissurae are out of consideration because the age differences. P. ultimus has definitely larger dimensions than the m2 from Litke 2.</p><p>Paleosciurus finds from Austria, Hungary and Romania: P. sutteri, Oberdorf, MN 4, DE BRUIJN (1998); P. sutteri, Teiritzberg and Obergänserndorf, MN 5, DAXNER-HÖCK (1998); P. ultimus, Hasznos, MN 6, HÍR &amp; PÁSZTI (2012); Paleosciurus sp., Subpiatra 2/2, MN 6, (HÍR unpublished).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF811D6E0C9FFA0298FEFD13	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF801D6E0F51FC949F54F907.text	527887ECFF801D6E0F51FC949F54F907.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Miopetaurista dehmi de Bruijn et al. 1980	<div><p>Miopetaurista dehmi de Bruijn et al., 1980</p><p>(Fig. 7)</p><p>Description – Rhomboid outline. Three main conids: protoconid, metaconid and hypoconid. Three lower developed conids: mesoconid, entoconid and mesolophid. There is a trench between the mesolophid and the entoconid. The anterolophid is more developed, strong and connected to the protoconid and the metaconid. The metalophid is less developed and runs to the middle part of the anterolophid. There is a small basin between the anterolophid and the metalophid. This basin is more developed than the lowest parts of the central basin. The enamel of the central basin is sculptured.</p><p>Comments – Other Miopetaurista species: M. goeriachensis (Hofmann, 1893) (MN 5); M. lappi (Mein, 1958) (MN 5); M. gaillardi (Mein, 1970) (MN 7/8); M. neogrivensis (Mein, 1970) (MN 7/8); M. thaleri (Mein, 1970) (MN 14); M. crusafonti (Mein, 1970) (MN 9).</p><p>All of them are larger than M. dehmi . Differential diagnosis is given by DE BRUIJN et al. (1980). Up to now M. dehmi was not reported from Hungary, but it is known from the Miocene of Austria ( M. dehmi, Oberdorf, MN 4, DE BRUIJN 1998; M. aff. dehmi, Obergänserndorf and Teiritzberg, MN 5, DAXNER-HÖCK 1998).</p><p>Large-sized Miopetaurista sp. is known from the MN7/8 and MN9 faunas of Hungary: Miopetaurista sp., Rudabánya, MN9, KRETZOI &amp; FEJFAR (2005); Miopetaurista sp., Felsőtárkány 3/2, MN 7/8 (HÍR unpublished).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF801D6E0F51FC949F54F907	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF8F1D610F5BFDBF9990F900.text	527887ECFF8F1D610F5BFDBF9990F900.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paraglis astaracensis Baudelot 1970	<div><p>Paraglis astaracensis Baudelot, 1970</p><p>(Fig. 8)</p><p>Description – Strongly worned subsenile specimen. Concave occlusal surface. Seven main ridges: anteroloph, protoloph, anterior extra ridge, anterior centroloph, posterior centroloph, metaloph and posteroloph. All of them are connected to the endoloph. The labial ends of the ridges are mainly merged; only the anterior centroloph is free, divided from the neighbouring ridges by two grooves. One short accessoric ridge is found between the posterior centroloph and the metaloph in the labial side.</p><p>Comments – The subfamily Bransatoglirinae covers a very wide stratigraphic range Late Eocene (MP 17) to the early Late Miocene (MN 9). A revision of the Bransatoglirinae is given by FREUDENTHAL &amp; MARTIN-SUÁREZ (2007). They restored the genus Paraglis Baudelot, 1970 and we follow their revised taxonomy. The subfamily was represented by only two species ( Bransatoglis cadeoti and Paraglis astaracensis) in the European faunas of the MN 4, MN 5 and MN 6 zones (DAAMS 1999). The latter one survived up to the MN9 zone. Bransatoglis cadeoti is out of consideration because of its larger measurements. The comparison of the dimensions of B. infralactorensis, P. astaracensis and B. cadeoti is given by SCHÖTZ (2002, p. 131.)</p><p>Occurrences of Bransatoglis and Paraglis in Austria, Slovakia and Hungary: B. fugax, Oberdorf, MN 4, DE BRUIJN 1998; B. aff. cadeoti, Obergänserndorf, MN 5, DAXNER-HÖCK 1998; Bransatoglis sp., Teiritzberg, MN 5, DAXNER-HÖCK 1998; P. astaracensis, Schönweg MN 5, RABEDER 1984; P. astaracensis, Neudorf-Spalte, MN 6, SABOL et al. 2004; P. astaracensis, Bonanza, MN 6, SABOL et al. 2004; Paraglis sp., Mátraszőlős 2., MN 7/8, HÍR &amp; KÓKAY 2004).</p><p>Referring to the opinion of CASANOVAS-VILAR (2007) Bransatoglis indicates affinities with the rodent faunas of higher latitudes. According to FREUDENTHAL &amp; MARTIN-SUÁREZ (2007) the centre of the distribution of Paraglis is Central and/or maybe Eastern Europe.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF8F1D610F5BFDBF9990F900	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF891D670C9EFC729FDDF8D3.text	527887ECFF891D670C9EFC729FDDF8D3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Keramidomys thaleri Hugeney et Mein 1968	<div><p>Keramidomys cf. thaleri Hugeney et Mein, 1968</p><p>(Figs 21–22)</p><p>Description – P4 – Anteroloph is not developed. The protoloph is strong. Mesoloph is long and connected to the paracone. The longitudinal crest is short, but complete.</p><p>M2 – The anteroloph is connected to the central part of the protoloph. The 1st syncline is narrow and closed. The longitudinal crest is ended just behind the protoloph. The mesoloph reaches the labial margin.</p><p>m1 – The anterolophid is connected to the labial angle of the protoconid. The 1st synclinid is narrow and closed. The longitudinal crest is ended just behind the protoconid. Mesolophid is long and connected to the metaconid.</p><p>Comments – The Keramidomys finds from Litke differ from K. anwilensis Engesser, 1972 in the long mesolophid in m1; from K. carpathicus (Schaub et Zapfe, 1953) in the long mesoloph in P4; from K. mohleri Engesser, 1972 in the smaller measurements; from K. fahlbuschi Qiu, 1996 in the smaller measurements, and in the well developed longitudinal crest in P4; from K. pertesunatoi Hartenberger, 1966, K. reductus Bolliger, 1992 and K. ermannorum Daxner-Höck et Höck, 2009 in the long mesoloph in the upper molars. The differences between K. thaleri and K. carpathicus are discussed by DAXNER HÖCK (1998), MEIN (2009) and PRIETO (2010). Established classification is possible only in the case of abundant materials.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF891D670C9EFC729FDDF8D3	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF881D7C0F30FDD29FBCFE1A.text	527887ECFF881D7C0F30FDD29FBCFE1A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megacricetodon minor (Lartet 1851)	<div><p>Megacricetodon minor (Lartet, 1851)</p><p>(Figs 23–34)</p><p>Description – M1 – Anterocone is splitted (consists of two cuspulas). Those are separated by a shallow groove in the mesial surface. The groove does not reach the basis of the crown. An anterocingulum is developed in the mesial base (5 out of 21 specimens). In one specimen the lingual anteroloph is continued along the lingual surface of the protocone up to the anterior base of the hypocone. The anterolophule runs to the lingual cuspula of the anterocone (14/21), or ramified (Y-shape) and the two branches are connected to the two cuspulas (7/21). Protolophule 1 (reaching the anterior basis of the paracone) is developed only in one molar. The protolophule 2 is nearly transversally directed and connected to the posterior angle of the protocone. Paracone posterior spur is missing (2/21), or short (does not reach the mesoloph) (4/21), or long (reaches the mesoloph) (8/21). In 5 cases the spur is long, but not connected to the mesoloph, because the mesoloph is short. In one case the spur is “hyperdeveloped”: reaches the anterior surface of the metacone on the labial margin (but not connected to the mesoloph). Mesoloph can be also long, either runs up to the labial margin (1/21), or does not reach the labial margin (7/21), it may be middle sized (6/21), or short (7/21). Entomesoloph is developed in one specimen, but it is not complete: does not reach the centroloph. The metalophule starts from the centre of the hypocone (2/21), from the posterior angle of the hypocone (8/21), or from the posteroloph (10/21). In one case the posterolophule is doubled: one of them starts from the posterior angle of the hypocone, the other one starts from the posterolophule. Three roots.</p><p>M2 – Protolophule 1 and 2 are equally developed (7/15), or only the protolophule 1 is observed (8/15). Paracone posterior spur is either missing (2/15), short (2/15), or long and reaches the mesoloph (5/15), or long, but does not reach the mesoloph because it is labially curved (2/15), or “hyperdeveloped”, reaches the anterior basis of the metacone (4/15). Mesoloph reaches the labial margin (3/15), or long, but does not reach the labial margin (11/15), or middle developed (1/15). Metalophule starts above the hypocone (12/15), from the centre of the hypocone (1/15), or from the posterior angle of the hypocone (2/15). Three roots.</p><p>M3 – Labial anteroloph arm is constant; there is a trench between the labial anteroloph and the metaloph-metacone. Lingual anteroloph arm is missing or incipient. The protolophulus starts from the anterior angle of the protocone. Lingual sinus is found only in one case. The axioloph is complete (5/9), interrupted (does not reach the protolophulus) (1/9), or missing (3/9). Centrocone is well developed (7/9), or fused into the mesoloph (2/9). A small hypocone is developed, the metacone is incipient (2/9), or fused into the posteroloph (7/9). Three roots.</p><p>m1 – Anteroconid centrally positioned and unicuspid (undivided). The anterolophulid is developed in the longitudinal axis of the tooth and either connected centrally to the anteroconid (18/27), or connected to the labial angle of the anteroconid (9/27). The anterolophulid is simple (21/27), or bears a spur (6/27). The lingual anterolophid is complete (20/27), or developed only as a stylid (6/27), or missing (1/27). The mesolophid reaches the lingual margin (1/28), medium sized (9/28), short (11/28), or missing (7/28). A low ectomesolophid is found in one m1. Well-developed labial posterolophulid branch is found only in one case. Two roots.</p><p>m2 – The crosspoint of the anterolophulids, protoconid anterior arm and metaconid is developed as a cuspula, “quasi anteroconid” (6/22). Lingual anterolophid is missing (7/22), short (7/22), middle developed (6/22), or long (2/22). Mesolophid is missing (3/23), short (4/23), middle developed (14/23), or long, but does not reach the lingual margin (1/23). Labial posterolophulid arm is developed in one case.</p><p>m3 – Lingual anterolophid is missing (3/9), short (1/9), middle developed (4/9), or long (1/9). Mesolophid is missing (9/9).</p><p>Comments – On the basis of the metric characters the large and middle-sized Megacricetodon species can be ruled out. Among the small-sized Megacricetodon species M. debruijni and M. minutus are out of consideration because of the significant age difference. These species appeared in the MN7/8 zone and their special morphological feature is the anteriorly curved lingual sinus in M2 medium sized protocone posterior arm. This configuration is missing in Litke.</p><p>By classifying of the Megacricetodon population of Litke the real possibilities are M. minor, M. primitivus and M. collongensis . Referring to DAAMS &amp; FREUDENTHAL (1988) M. minor differs from M. primitivus among others characters by the more frequent double protolophule in M2. The frequency of this configuration is between 50–100% in the Central European M. minor populations. In Spanish M. primitivus materials this value is between 9–33%. The double protolophule is found in 47% of M 2 in Litke, which is closer to M. minor . The frequency of the double protolophule in M2 is a good marker for the distinction of M. collongensis and M. minor (DAAMS &amp; FREUDENTHAL 1988) . In the Spanish M. collongensis populations this value is between 4–32%. According to the above citated authors M. minor differs from M. collongensis by the longer mesolophids in m1 and m2. Here we listed the frequency of the morphotype where the mesolophid is completely missing (Table 3).</p><p>M. minor is a frequent element of the Middle Miocene rodent faunas and it has a long chronological range in Central Europe (from MN5 to MN9 zone). There are different opinions in the literature on the evolutionary trends of the M. minor populations. WESSELS &amp; REUMER (2009) refused any apparent trend in size and in morphology and their opinion is that the small difference in average sizes in the Sandelzhausen molars compared to the type specimens from Sansan does not warrant a separate taxonomical position.</p><p>KÄLIN (1997) and KÄLIN &amp; KEMPF (2009) distinguished the following three “taxa” within M. minor sensu lato .</p><p>1. M. cf. minor or Megacricetodon sp. is “very small”. After the above cited authors it represents a new, yet unnamed species which is characteristic in the period approximately 15.2–14.4 MY ago and corresponds most probably to the species “ M. minor small form” described by HEISSIG (1997). Up to now this form has not been found in the Carpathian Basin.</p><p>2. The typical, relatively large sized M. minor (e.g. Sagentobel, Unterneul 1a, Rümikon, Göttschlag, Ziemethausen, Helsinghausen in the Upper Freshwater Molasse). The known populations in the Carpathian Basin are Hasznos, Sámsonháza, Felsőtárkány – Felnémet 2/3, 2/7. The Litke material is referable to this form, although the molars from Litke have some special characters: occurrence of hyperdeveloped paracone posterior spur in M1-M2, occurrence of lingual cingulum from the anterocone to the hypocone in M1, 100% unicuspid (undivided) and relatively narrow anteroconid in m1. The two latter markers are definitely plesiomorph characters and those are known in the Early Aragonian Megacricetodon primitivus populations. It was described, e.g. from Buñol (DAAMS &amp; FREUDENTHAL 1974), Aliveri (KLEIN HOFMEIER &amp; DE BRUIJN 1988), La Retama (ÁLVAREZ SIERA et al. 2006), Pico de Fraile (RUIZ SANCHEZ et al. 2013), Artesilla (OLIVER PÉREZ et al. 2008).</p><p>3. M. aff. minor is a small form, which appeared in the MN8 zone (Anwil). Its relation to other small-sized Megacricetodon taxa ( M. debruijni, M. minutus) and its possible synonymy is still under discussion. This Late Astaracian – Early Vallesian Megacricetodon form is known in the Carpathian Basin from Mátraszőlős, Felsőtárkány 1, 2, 3/2, 3/10 but they originally were classified as M. minor, M. minutus or M. cf. minutu s.</p><p>As a conclusion the Litke Megacricetodon material can be classified as Megacricetodon minor with the remark that it has some archaic characters.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF881D7C0F30FDD29FBCFE1A	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF921D7E0F2AFD9B9FB9FC05.text	527887ECFF921D7E0F2AFD9B9FB9FC05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Democricetodon mutilus Fahlbusch 1964	<div><p>Democricetodon mutilus Fahlbusch, 1964</p><p>(Figs 35–37)</p><p>Description – M1 – Anterocone is two parted but not divided by any gooves. The mesial surface is smooth. The labial unit is larger than the lingual one. The lingual and labial anteroloph reach the anterior basis of the protocone and paracone closes the anterosinus and the protosinus. The anterolophule connects to the lingual unit of the anterocone and the anterior angle of the protocone. Protolophule I is missing, the protolophule II starts from the posterior angle of the protocone. The mesoloph is moderately developed or long, but ends before the labial margin. The metalophule is posterior, started from the posterior angle of the hypocone or from the posteroloph.</p><p>M2 – The lingual and labial anterolophs are nearly equally developed and reach the anterior basis of the protocone and the paracone closes the sinuses. The protolophule is double, but the protolophule II is less developed and does not reach the basis of the paracone. The paracone posterior spur is continued in the labial cingulum and reaches the anterior basis of the metacone. The metalophule is short, started from the centre of the hypocone. The lingual sinus is closed by a cingulum; the posterior sinus is closed by the posteroloph.</p><p>M3 – Subtriangular outline. The lingual anteroloph is shorter than the labial one and the sinus behind the lingual anteroloph is shallower than the sinus behind the labial anteroloph. A small lingual sinus is developed between the protocone and the hypocone. The axioloph is complete; the mesolophid is long but ends before the labial border. Hypocone is delimited; metacone is fused into the posteroloph.</p><p>m1 – Anteroconid is unicuspid, undivided or two parted but not divided. The mesial surface is convex. The labial anterolophid is well developed, the lingual one is less and lower developed but visible. Anterolophulid is not developed; anterosinusid and protosinusid are united in 2012.145. specimen, while very short in 2013.91. specimen. The mesolophid is short or middle developed. The labial sinusid is closed by a low cingulum.</p><p>m2 – Hardly worn, inadequate for morphological description.</p><p>Comments – The stratigraphic range of this species is MN5-MN 6 in the Swiss molasse (KÄLIN &amp; KEMPF 2009). Description of the species in the Hungarian locality Mátraszőlős 2 was a mistake (HÍR &amp; KÓKAY 2004). Later the identification was corrected as Democricetodon brevis (HÍR &amp; KÓKAY 2011) . In the Cricetodon meini faunas of the Upper Freshwater Molasse D. mutilus was found in a series of localities in the North Alpine Foreland basin (HEISSIG 1989, BOLLIGER 1994, KÄLIN &amp; KEMPF 2009) and Mühlbach in Austria (DAXNER-HÖCK 2002).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF921D7E0F2AFD9B9FB9FC05	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
527887ECFF901D720F0CFB8B9ACFF8F3.text	527887ECFF901D720F0CFB8B9ACFF8F3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cricetodon meini Freudenthal 1963	<div><p>Cricetodon meini Freudenthal, 1963</p><p>(Figs 38–48)</p><p>Description – M1 – The anteroconus consists of two equal size cuspulas (9 out of 11 specimens). These cuspulas are divided by a shallow groove on the mesial surface. The groove does not reach the base of the toothcrown. Anteroconus is undivided (2/11). Anterior cingulum is missing. The labial cuspula bears a labially curved anteroconus sporn (5/11). A relatively short anterolophulus connects the lingual anteroconus cuspula with the protoconus. Completely developed lingual quersporn II is developed between the anterolophulus and the antero-lingual margin (6/11). The lingual quersporn II is developed only as a conelet without any connection with the anterolophulus (4/11). Short paraconus posterior ectoloph (8/11). Protolophulus I is missing. Protolophulus II and metalophulus are posteriorly directed. Mesoloph, entomesoloph, posteroloph and posterosinus are not developed. Four roots.</p><p>M2 – The anteroloph has a weak lingual and a strong labial arm. The labial arm is developed as a labial anteroconus cuspula (4/11). The anteroloph arms are centrally connected to the anterior end of the anterolophulus. Paracone posterior spur is longer than in M1. Protolophus and metalophulus are posteriorly directed. Short mesoloph (4/11). Posteroloph and posterosinus are not developed. Four roots.</p><p>M3 – The lingual anteroloph arm is missing or incipient (3/8). In other cases it is normally developed but always weaker than the labial arm. Paracone posterior spur is long; it reaches the labial end of the mesoloph (3/8). In the specimen 2012.205. it reaches the anterior ectoloph of the metaconus. Mesoloph is short (1/8), middle developed (1/8) or long in any other cases. Protolophulus and metalophulus are transversally directed. Posteroloph and posterosinus are developed in 6/ 8 specimens but those are missing in the other cases. Three roots.</p><p>m1 – The anteroconid is in central position and in the juvenile unworn molars it is slightly less developed than the protoconid. Labial anterolophid arm is developed, reaches the antero-labial basis of the protoconid and closes a protosinusid. The anterosinusid is mostly open. It is closed only in the few cases where the metalophulid I is developed (2/15). The metalophulid II is short, transversally (6/15) or posteriorly (2/15) directed. In some molars metalophulid II is not developed (3/15). Sometimes the metaconid is isolated (2/15). In specimen 2013.28. the metalophulid is doubled. Short mesolophid (4/15). A low developed, long and thin ectomesolophid is visible in 7/15. Short ectomesolophid (2/15). Mesosinusid and posterosinusid are open, the labial sinusid is closed by a low developed cingulum. Hypolophulid I is short and antero-labially directed. Two roots.</p><p>m2 – Labial anterolophid arm is developed, reaches the antero-labial basis of the protoconid and closes a protosinusid. Lingual anterolophid arm is not developed. The short metalophulid I is antero-labially directed. A short mesolophid is constant, ectomesolophid is missing. Hypolophulid I is mostly antero-labially directed, but in some cases it is transversal (6/14). The lingual sinusid and the posterosinusid are open; the labial sinusid is closed by a less developed cingulum. Two antero-posteriorly flattened roots with a tendency for duplication.</p><p>m3 – Rounded posterior margin. The development of the lingual and labial anterolophid arms is identical to m2. Mesolophid is missing (4/14) or short (10/14). Metalophulid I is antero-labially directed. Hypolophulid I is anterolabially or transversally (2/14) directed. Two flattened roots with a tendency for duplication.</p><p>Comments – We can identify our Cricetodon material as C. meini because the mean dimensions are close to other C. meini populations (Figs 49, 50). In m1 the posterior metalophulid is the most frequent, but anterior metalophulid and double metalophulid is also found in the material.</p><p>With regards to the type population of Vieux Collonges there are some differences. The presence of the ectomesolophids in m1 is only 44%. This ridge is completely missing in m2 and m3. In M1 and M2 the mesolophs are short or missing. On the other hand these morphological characters are found in some C. meini populations. In Mühlbach (DAXNER-HÖCK 2002) the mesoloph is short in the M1, short or medium length in M2. Sometimes there is a very short ectomesolophid in m1 and weak ectomesolophid is found in only one molar. In Antonios (VASILEIADOU &amp; KOUFOS 2005) the mesoloph is short or middle developed in M1. Frequency of ectomesolophid in m1 is 3/8. In m2-m3 ectomesolophid is missing. In Bele Vode (MARKOVIĆ 2008) the mesoloph is short in M1; no mesolophid and ectomesolophid in m1 and m2.</p><p>In the identification of the Litke Cricetodon material the other possible alternative is the C. aff. aureus Rummel et Kälin, 2003 or C. aff. meini in sense of BOLLIGER (1994) from the populations of Gallenbach 2b, Rümikon and Sagentobel. However, there are some morphological differences: in Sagentobel the double metalophulid in m1 is missing (BOLLIGER 1994), while in the material of Rümikon protolophulus I is found in M1 (RUMMEL &amp; KÄLIN 2003).</p><p>Up to the excavation of the Litke localities C. meini was not mentioned from Hungary.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/527887ECFF901D720F0CFB8B9ACFF8F3	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	Hír, J.	Hír, J. (2013): Early and Middle Miocene (MN 5 - MN 6) transitional rodent fauna from Litke (North Hungary, Nógrád County). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 30: 101-137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17142595
