Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 85. (Budapest 1993)

Gasparik, M.: Deinotheres (Proboscidea, Mammalia) of Hungary

22. Szurdokpüspöki: Prodeinotherium bavaricum (V. MEYER) (Deinotherium bavaricum V. MEYER: KRETZOI & PÁLFALVY 1967, KORDOS 1983). Material: P

4 dext., M3 sin., two M2 dext., two M

2 sin., P

3 dext., maxilla sin. fr. with M , M

2

, M

3 fr., maxilla dext. fr. with M

1

, M

2

, M

3 fr., tusk fragments [HGI, without inventory number]. 23. Tinnye: Deinotherium cf. giganteum KAUP. Material: M

1 sin. [HNHM V.72.108]. 24. Várpalota: Prodeinotherium bavaricum (V MEYER) (Deinotherium bavaricum V MEYER: KORDOS 1983). Material: P4 sin. fr. [HGI, without inventory number], P

3 sin. fr. [HNHM V60.1573]. 25. Zagyvapálfalva: Prodeinotherium hungaricum ÉHIK (Deinotherium cf. bavaricum v. MEYER: KORDOS 1983). Material: M

2

dext. [HNHM V.72.111]. The situation of the localities can be seen on Fig. 3, Fig. 18 shows their stratigraphical position. CLASSIFICATION OF DEINOTHERIIDAE SPECIES The deinothere remains were often classified quite differently from author to author applying various specific and generic names. Generic names: The name of Deinotherium was introduced by KAUP in 1829 (as Dinotherium). At the beginning all remains were classified into this genus, the species were defined on the basis of the geographic distribution and the characters of the mandible and dentition (HARRIS 1973: 292). The generic name Prodeinotherium (as Prodinotherium) was erected by ÉHIK, who suggested even in the description of P. hungaricum that probably all small-sized species, assigned to the genus Deinotherium up to that time, would have to be classed into the genus Prodeinotherium (ÉHIK 1930: 14). HARRIS (1973: 294) placed into this genus also D. bavaricum (as P. bavaricum). Specific names: An extreme classification was made by WEINSHEIMER (1883) who determined all remains to Deinotherium giganteum. In contrast with this, OSBORN (1936) admitted eight European species upon the original descriptions of the respective authors. GRAF (1957: 172) described three species; D. bavaricum, D. levius, D. giganteum, and mentioned the D. gigantissimum as a possible fourth species. BERGOUNIOUX & CROUZEL (1962: 50) separated two size categories and classified the remains into a small and a large species (D. bavaricum, D. giganteum) upon the measurements and crown-morphology. HARRIS (1973: 345) also separated two European taxa, but he ranked the smaller species into the genus Prodeinotherium (P. bavaricum, D giganteum). During the examination of the Hungarian Deinotheriidae material I considered three aspects: at first the measurements, secondly the morphological features of the teeth, finally the stratigraphical position of the remains. Figs 4 and 5 show the length/maximum width data of the premolars. Because of small number of the Hungarian finds I included the data of GRAF (1957) and DEHM (1947) for the better separation of size categories in the diagram. The length/width proportions of the teeth are about the same (within a species and among the species, too), hence on the diagram: 1. The lower and upper teeth fall into two isolated stripes. 2. The distinguishable size-ranges of the tooth-pairs being in equal position (P3-P

3 and P4-P

4

) fall into parallel stripes. Considering these I separated four size-ranges, each of them representing a deinothere species (in increasing order; P. hungaricum, P. bavaricum, D. giganteum, D. gigantissimum). Between the adjoining domains there are small overlaps, transitions. (I have to mention that I made the diagrams of molars, too, when on the M1-M

1 diagram the