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

comparison of different anatomical units with those of the skeleton of Homotherium crenatidens from Senéze in the Museum of Basel, which I examined by the courtesy of B. ENGESSER, convinced me that this is an absolutely different, bear-like form, with robust extremity-bones. The Beremend-material originates from a slender-boned form. Thus, the determination as " Epimac hair o dus latidens" seems to be established. Leo sp.; We could not decide on a series of bones of large felids, whether they originate from machairodontids or from a lion, but the presence of the latter is highly probable (fragments of humeri, ulnae, pelvis etc.), all from B/16. Hyaena sp.; In the course of selection of the fragments of bones of different mammals I found a distal part of humerus of a larger carnivore in B/16. The shape and size of the bone (distal width about 42 mm, the overall picture of the trochlea, of the epicondyli and of the foramen obturatum) speaks for the presence of a hyena. The size and the shape of the bone fragments agrees well with the corresponding anatomical unit of Crocuta spelaea from an Upper Pleistocene specimen of the Collection of the Budapest Museum (Igric-Cave, Transylvania, dist. width about 52 mm). Taking into consideration that about extremity-bones of hyenas almost nothing is published in the literature, we can hardly tell more about the Beremend-specimen. Ursus sp.; Among the great number of bones we found an M, and M

1

, a metapodial-fragm. and a phalanx in B/16 originating from a larger bear. The bones refer perhaps to Ursus deningeri or an allied form. Bovidae; One of the greatest problems of identification of the large-mammalian material of Beremend 16 - 17 is posed by the more than two hundred cranial and postcranial elements of bones and bone-fragments, which originate from antilopes or other bovids. I made drawings and took photocopies and we measured of the entire bones of this group from the locality. Furthermore, by courtesy of B. ENGESSER (Basel), I had the possibility to compare the data of the Hungarian material with the specimens of Leptobos (Seneze, Saint Valuer), Megalovis (Seneze), Nemorhoedus (Gallogoral, skeleton of the neotype from Seneze), and literature data. Together with I. VÖRÖS we could elaborate the following provisional picture about the bovid material of Beremend: most of the bones speak for the presence of a large Nemorhoedus (= Gallogoral) species (with cca 75 extremity-bones and fragments)(Pl. I: 6). One of the metacarpals is so broad that its measurements (length = 176 mm, proximal width = 55 mm) correspond to those of Ovibos (Pl. I: 7). During the Conference in Krakow (1994) we consulted with A. N. TlKHONOW (Sankt Petersburg), the best expert in the osteology of Ovibos, and in his opinion the mentioned metacarpal bone does not match that of the musk ox. The next one would be the uncertainly determined Megalovis (Pl. I: 3-4) (about 90 bones and fragments) and a slender built antilope (cca 50 pieces). Scattered bones of the size and proportions of Leptobos (6 pieces) and those of a small bovid (? Ovis sp., 10 pieces) close the row. Unfortunately the horn-cores, so important for the determination, are not present for examination, because most of them get to a private collector (I. MAKOVNYIK) and are not available. Cervus cf. acoronatus Beninde (Pl. I: 5); Some fragments (about them the distal fragm. of mt.) matches those of a middle-sized Cervus elaphus. The systematical designation is of course a "stratigraphical name".