Szabó János szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 23. 2005. (Budapest, 2005)

24 KORDOS Systematics Phylum Vcrtebrata Class Mammalia LINNAEUS, 1758 Order Rodentia BOWDICH, 1821 Superfamily Muroidea ILLIGER, 1811 Family Muridae ILLIGER, 1811 Subfamily Anomalomyinae SCHAUB, 1925 Genus Anomalomys GAILLARD, 1900 Anomalomys rudabanyensis KORDOS, 1989 1976: Anomalomys cf. gaillardi VlRET & SCHAUB, 1946 - KRETZOI et al., p. 375. 1976: Prospalax petteri BACHMAYER & WILSON, 1970 - KRETZOI et al., p. 376. 1985: Anomalomys gaudryi GAILLARD, 1900 - RABEDER, p. 447. 1989: Anomalomys rudabanyensis n. sp. - KORDOS, p. 298, fig. 1/4 (holotype); p.

299, figs. 3/1-15. 1994: Anomalomys rudabanyensis KORDOS - KOWALSKI, p. 164. 1996: Anomalomys rudabanyensis KORDOS - BOLLIGER, p. 239. 1999: Anomalomys rudabanyensis KORDOS - BOLLIGER, p. 412. 2003: Anomalomys rudabanyensis KORDOS - KORDOS, p. 16. Material — There is a total of 61 specimens of Anomalomys from Rudabánya localities 1, 2, 3 and 7, including both upper and lower molar teeth. They are distributed among these localities as follows: locality 1: 3 specimens; locality 2: 50 specimens; locality 3: 4 specimens; locality 7: 4 specimens. The estimated minimum number of individuals based on the number of lower first molars is ten (6 left ones and 10 right ones). The dental distribution of all anomalomyines from these Rudabánya localities are as follows: Ml: 8; M2: 10; M3: 5; ml: 16; m2: 8; m3: 8; as well as one lower incisor and five fragments (Table 1). Measurements — Measurements of Anomalomys rudabanyensis from Rudabánya localities were taken on the external surface of the enamel folds of the masticatory surface, under binocular microscope using occular micrometer. Length is the total antero-posterior extension measured in the sagittal plane of the molar. Width is the greatest extension orthogonally in the sagittal plane (Table 1). Main morphological characters of Anomalomys rudabanyensis — In comparison with other European Early—Late Miocene anomalomyines, the Rudabánya sample of A. rudabanyensis exhibits the following characteristics: Ml (Figures 4, 7—8): The anterocone—protocone complex has remained undivided and became joined to the remainder of the tooth's occlusal surface by a narrow isthmus. The paracone and the mesoloph are connected, forming a single unit with the hypocone. The metacone is partly separated, but the enamel is continuous with the hypoconule. The Ml exhibits a transitional state of anomalomyine evolution between the more complicated enamel morphology of the older Anomalomys gaudryi and that of the simplified, younger Anomalomys petteri. M2 (Figures 4, 9-10): The continuous form of enamel folds includes a well developed anterocone; an oblique protocone—paracone—metacone fold (as it is interpreted here); a posteroloph—hypoconule complex joined to the hypocone. Sometimes close to the paracone, and close to the metacone, there is a single enamel lake. Only one specimen of Anomalomys gaudryi exhibits a more complicated, ancient molar morphotype. M3 (Figures 4, 11): The M3 is extremely reduced anteroposteriorly and square-shaped. Anteriorly, the protocone-anterocone-paracone complex is well developed, whereas posteriorly the hypocone—metacone complex has a number of separate enamel lakes. The lingual mesosinus is well developed. il: The lower incisor has two longitudinal crests on the labial surface. ml (Figures 5, 12-14): The anteroconid-metaconid forms a single anterior complex, which is separated from the remainder of the tooth by the anterosinid. The sinid, which was formed earlier by the posterior metalophulid and mesolophid ^Anomalomys marker"), is often closed. The lingual mesosinid, bordered by the mesolophid and entoconid, is well developed. There is no trace of an ectomesolophid. The posterolophid forms a single unit with the hypocomd—hypoconulid—posterior cingulum complex. m2 (Figures 5—6, 15): The anteroconid is completely fused to the anterolophid and metaconid, and it is not separated from the remainder of the molar surface by an anterosinid. There is no metalophulid 'Anomalomys marker" present. The mesolophid and entoconid are closed by the lingual mesosinid, and they form an enamel lake. The buccal mesosinid and the lingual posterosinid are well developed on both sides of the tooth, but they are not separated from the hypoconid—posterolophid system by a protoconid-entoconid fold. m3 (Figures 6, 16): The elongated, posteriorly tapering occlusal surface is very much the same as seen in the m2. The buccally closed anterosinid is well developed. The short mesolophid is present only in the younger unworn individuals. In older individuals this structure is joined with the entoconid. The well-developed posterosinid is not connected with the buccal mesosinid. The hypoconid— posterior cingulum forms a strong fold. Comparison — Anomalomys gaudryi differs from A. rudabanyensis in the following general characteristics: (1) more complex dental fold system; (2) brachyodonty; (3) the mesoloph of Ml and M2 is separated and well developed; (4) the anteroloph of M2 is separated from the paraloph; (5) the anteroconid—mesoconid system of ml is not