Nógrád Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve XXV. (2001)

Természettudomány - Dr. Hír János: Új középső miocén rágcsálófaunák Észak-Magyarországról

Democricetodon cf. freisingensis FAHLBUSCH, 1964 Figs. 31., 41. The most important morphological markers of the larger sized Democricetodon species from Mátraszőlős 2 are : - Ml: long labial éperon of the anterolophule and long mesolophe - ml, m2: long mesolophid and long ectomesolophid. This morphology unambiguously refers to the original description of D. freisingensis (FAHLBUSCH, 1964), but the measurements exceed the dimensions of any Democricetodon populations published by HEISSIG (1995). 2M1: 2.34 x 1.47, 2.25 x 1.44, lml: 2,07 x 1.36. From metrical point of view the D. cf. freisingensis matériái from Vermes 2 (ENGESSER et al, 1981) is very close to our finds, but the morphology is strongly différent because in the Swiss matériái no long labial éperon and long mesolophe in the Ml, M2 molars and the mesolophid in the ml crowns is shorter. Megacricetodon minor (LARTET, 1851) Figs. 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 32.,33.,34., 35., 42., 43., 44., 45.) The most importan morphological markers are the following: - in the Ml -M2 molars short, or middle developed mesolophe and short posterior ectoloph of the paracone - in the ml -m2 molars undivided anteroconid, short or middle developed mesolophid - middle developed lingual anterocingulum in the m2 molars. Substancial différences in the morphology and in the dimensions were not found among the populations of Sámsonháza, Mátraszőlős and Hasznos. (The two small sized Ml molars of Mátraszőlős are digested, Fig. 2.) This picture refers to the M. minor populations of Switzerland and Southern Germany (HEISSIG 1989, BOLLIGER 1994, BOLLIGER 2000, SACH 1999), in France Sansan (BAUDELOT 1972) and Luc-sur-Orbieu (Aguilar 1980). The systematic position of the only Megacricetodon Ml molar from Egerbocs (Fig. 46.) is uncertain. The long labial spur of the anterolophule and the long mesolophe are archaic markers, but the relatively large measurements are mainly derived characters in the genus. This contradiction is possible to solve only on the basis of a population. The two larger sized molars from Felsőtárkány 1 are similarly enigmatic. Up to the présent we hâve no sure data on the présence of the Megacricetodon bavaricus - M. germanicus line in the Karpathian Basin. Cricetodon cf. hungaricus (KORDOS, 1986) Figs. 29., 50., 51., 52. Related to the matériái of Hasznos the Cricetodon molars of Sámsonháza show a simplification in the morphology: because in the Ml, M2 molars the missing of the closed central rings and shortening of the mesolophes, in the lower molars the shortening of the mesolophids and ectomesolophids. In the Ml, M2 molars of Mátraszőlős the central ring is developed (Fig. 50.). Remarkable différences were not found among the dimensions of the three populations. The materilal of the two new localities seems to be as local descendants of С hungaricus. In the matériái of Felsőtárkány (MN 7-8) and Rudabánya (MN 9) the Cricetodon species are missing. Eumyarion äff bifidus FAHLBUSCH Fig. 36. and Eumyarion médius (LARTET 1851) Fig. 37.and Eumyarion latior (SCHAUB et ZAPFE 1953) Fig. 38. 244