Vörös A. szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 18. 1996. (Budapest, 1996)

FRAGMENTA MINERALOGICA ET PALAEONTOLOGICA 18. BUDAPEST, 1996 p. 103-105 The proper generic allocation of Clemmys mehelyi Kormos, 1911 (Reptilia, Testudines) by U. Fritz & B. Farkas FRITZ, U. & FARKAS, B. (1996): The proper generic allocation of Clemmys mehelyi Kormos, 1911 (Reptilia, Testudines). - Fragm. Min. et Pal, 18: 103-105. Abstract: The identity of Clemmys mehelyi Kormos, 1911 is reviewed. On the basis of its characteristic carapacial seam arrangement and the size of its vertebral and costal scutes it is assigned to the genus Clemmydopsis. Clemmydopsis sopronensis Boda, 1927 is declared a junior synonym of C. mehelyi. In 1911, KORMOS described a fragment of a fossil turtle carapace from Süttő, Komárom County, Hungary, under the name "Clemmys Méhelyf as a new species. The specimen was recovered from freshwater limestone layers most probably of Late Pliocene or Early Pleistocene age (MLINARSKI 1966, KORDOS pers. comm.). SZÁLAI (1934) regarded this example as belonging to Emys orbicularis, an opinion later repeated by MLINARSKI (1966). SCHLEICH (1988), on the other hand, concluded from the description of KORMOS that C. mehelyi cannot be treated as a synonym of E. orbicularis. Instead, he classified it as a junior synonym of Mauremys caspica. However, SCHLEICH did not study the type specimen of C. mehelyi, and his conclusion is derived exclusively from an interpretation of the original description. Hence, it should be treated with caution. Consequently, FRITZ (1995) ignored SCHLEICH's (1988) publication in his revision of fossil turtles of the genus Emys, and listed Clemmys mehelyi among the junior synonyms of Emys orbicularis anliqua. Recently, the junior author had the opportunity to re-examine the holotype of Clemmys mehelyi in the collection of the Hungarian Geological Survey, Budapest (HGS 1889). It is the hind part of a carapace, measuring 56 mm at the widest point. The specimen was compared with shells of Recent E. orbicularis and M. caspica of a similar size. It clearly differs from both. The sutures and sulci of the bony and horny shell plates, respectively, are sufficiently preserved in HGS 1889, and a line-drawing is provided here as Figure 1. It differs in certain details from the figure furnished by KORMOS (1911), because this author did not adequately discriminate between the seams of the horny (sulci) and bony shell elements (sutures).