Vörös A. szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 16. 1993. (Budapest, 1993)

m 2 Esztramos 3. no.23, min. L 1.47 Wa 1.18 Wp 1.12 Villány 3. no.31, min. L 1.50 Wa 1.29 Wp 1.29 Vil.3.-Esz.3. no.54, min. L 1.47 Wa 1.18 Wp 1.12 m 3 Esztramos 3. no.20, min. L 1.39 Wa 1.09 Villány 3. no.28, min. L 1.48 Wa 1.18 Vil.3.-Esz.3. no.48, min. L 1.39 Wa 1.09 X max. SD 1.63 1.88 0.11447 1.28 1.51 0.09288 1.28 1.47 0.09375 X max. SD 1.68 1.81 0.07890 1.36 1.43 0.04169 1.36 1.47 0.04326 X max. SD 1.66 1.88 0.09850 1.33 1.51 0.07980 1.33 1.47 0.08120 X max. SD 1.58 1.96 0.12692 1.23 1.39 0.07219 X max. SD 1.72 1.85 0.07899 1.26 1.39 0.04843 X max. SD 1.66 1.96 0.12440 1.25 1.39 0.06014 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS M 1 Morphological distribution: A: preanterocone cingulum (PAC)

+, Parastyle (PAST) +: 12 B: PAC -, PAST +: 1 C: PAC 4-, PAST -: 9 D: PAC -, PAST -: 3 E: PAC+,PAST+,mesolophe(ML)orentostyle(ENST) + : 3 The frequency of the PAC and PAST is rather high. The mesolophe on the Etype molars is a feature of the Miocene cricetids (Kordos 1987). In the Upper Biharian Allocricetus bursae populations of Hungary (Hír 1989, 1992) the PAC and the PAST have lower frequency and the E-type is absolutely missing. On the scatter diagram of the M 1 molars the metrical bimodality is clearly visible (Fig. 1) and it is confirmed by other Allocricetus ehiki materials. The previous authors (Fahlbusch 1969, Pradel 1988) have not commented this phenomenon, because the teeth were very few in the material of them. The bimodal distribution is characteristic at the Ml, M2 and m2 molars (Figs. 1, 2, 5) but it was not recorded at the M3, ml and m3 molars (Figs. 3, 4, 6). Among the few complete