Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 55. (Budapest 1963)

Topál, Gy.: The bats of a Lower Pleistocene site from Mt. Kövesvárad near Répáshuta, Hungary

148 gy. top

ai. being larger than the recent ones. Unfortunately, they are largely missing from most of the mandibles, with only their alveoli present. Of the lower molars, the most significant deviation is in the length of M

2. Concerning the length, width, and the width of the talonid of M

3, there is 110 difference between the fossil and the recent form, the same as in the case of M

3. Knowing the strict correlation in the lengths of the upper and lower row's of teeth, we might safely assume that the fossil subspecies had an even longer rostrum than the recent one. Since then, only the length of the premolar rows could have shortened, aside of a decrease in size. It is quite manifest that Myotis bechsteini had essentially developed already in the younger Lower Pleistocene and became, in several aspects, an overspecialized taxon. One can hardly explain, as regards the great numbers of findings, the complete lack of the bones of the extremities, and especially of the long-bones of the fore limbs. One might suggest that some kind of an owl could have captured these specimens in some other locality or maybe in the field, where it had torn off the „superfluous" wings. I have some observations in this regard in caves inhabited by bats where also an owl had taken up its quarters. From the pellet, only the bones of the head and body could have arrived in the sediment. Myotis cf. gundersheimensis HELLER Right M

2 2 exemplars; left maxillary fragment with M

1

—M

2, separate upper C. Right mandibulary fragment with P

3

—M

3and without processes, separate lower C, M

1_2 trigonids; posterior portion of left mandible with whole processes and M

3, separate P

4, M

2. Distal portion of right humerus, proximal portion of radius, proximal portion of femur, proximal portion of tibia, scapular end of clavicula; proximal fragment of left humerus. A total of 16 exemplars, belonging to at least two specimens. Length of M

1

—M

2 2,9 mm, P

4—M

3 5,0 mm, M,

—M

3 4,1 mm, length of crosssection of upper C 1,08 mm, width of upper C 0,76 mm, length of M

2 1,48 mm. width of M

2 1,96—2,07 mm, length of M

2 1,48 mm, length of M

3 1,36—1,40 mm, width of M

3 0,88—1,0 mm, width of M

3 talonid 0,72—6,84 mm. Several measurements of the fossil form relegated here are greater than those of M. emarginatus, but it is also closely allied to it. On the other hand, it agrees also with M. gundersheimensis (HELLER. 1). For instance, the length of P

4

—M

3 in M. emarginatus is 4,60—4.95 (M = 4,79 mm), but in M. gundersheimensis 4,80—5,1 mm (5,0 mm in the type-mandible). The length of —M

3 in M. emarginatus is 3,67—4.05 mm (M = 3,87 mm), but 3.9—4,3 mm (Type 4,0 mm) in Al. gundersheimensis. Except for the single upper C, the findings are larger than the means of the recent measurements, indeed, they are above the upper limits in some cases of the recent dimensions. The closely tightened state of the small lower premolars, characterizing M. gundersheimensis according to HELLER, is manifestly valid also for these remains. However, this occurs in also one or two recent M. emarginatus, and thus it is not a decisive difference. The P

4 from Répáshuta slightly differs from the recent one, since, though its cingulum is horizontal 011 the external margin, the upside curvature between the two deflected waves is by far not as high as in the majority of the recent animals. In the lower tooth row, the formation of M

3 is very characteristical. (aside of the measurements). The linguaLmargin of the tooth is straight in the fossils, while that of the recent animals seem to bend outwards, due to the narrow talonid, and there is an elevation medially of the tooth. The oral teeth, thus