Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 87. (Budapest 1995)
Farkas, B.: Fossil trionychid turtle types in Hungarian collections - a preliminary review (Reptilia, Testudines)
ANNALES HISTORICO-NATURALES MUSEI NATIONALIS HUNGARICI Tomus 87. Budapest, 1995 p. 57-62 Fossil trionychid turtle types in Hungarian collections - a preliminary review (Reptilia, Testudines) by B. FARKAS, Budapest FARKAS, B. (1995): Fossil trionychid turtle types in Hungarian collections - a preliminary review (Reptilia, Testudines). - Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. hung. 87: 57-62. Abstract - The type material of four species of fossil trionychid turtles (Trionyx clavatomarginatus LÖRENTHEY, T harmati SZÁLAI, T. nopcsai SZÁLAI and T pseudovindobonensis SZÁLAI) is redescribed and evaluated. T nopcsai is tentatively assigned to Chelydropsis cf. C. decheni (H. v. MEYER) (family Chelydridae); T. pseudovindobonensis and T. liarmati, the holotype of which is no longer available, are declared undeterminable beyond the family level; T. clavatomarginatus is accepted as a bona species awaiting comprehensive revision. With 4 figures. INTRODUCTION Even within the order Testudines, the family Trionychidae is of great antiquity, with definite records dating back at least to the Lower Cretaceous of Kirgizia (NESOV 1977 in KORDIKOVA 1991a) and Mongolia (GlLMORE 1934), but possibly even to the Jurassic of Sichuan, China (YOUNG & CHOW 1953). Its representation as fossils is considerable as revealed in part by the descriptions of approximately 250 species (cf. HUMMEL 1929). The family is apparently most closely related to the Carettochelyidae, the Nanhsiungchelyidae, the Dermatemydidae and the Kinosternidae, all being united in the superfamily Trionychoidea (GAFFNEY 1975, 1984). For a definition of the Trionychidae or a condensation thereof see MEYLAN (1987) and GAFFNEY & MEYLAN (1988), respectively. The phylogenetic position of the Trionychoidea within the Testudines was discussed by GAFFNEY & MEYLAN (op. cit.). In 1987, MEYLAN revised the 22 Recent trionychid species on the basis of 113 osteological characters, and those previously placed in the single "wastebasket" genus Trionyx are currently considered to belong to nine different genera, with 47 generic names being synonyms. Apart from WEBB (1990), who could not decide whether to accept his own proposal (referred to as "WEBB [in press!" m his paper, but apparently unpublished as yet) for creating a new subfamily, Chitrinae, to contain the genera Chitra and Pelochelys, and recognizing at least Aspideretes and Dogania on the genus or subgenus level, VAN DlJK (1992), who did not agree with the placement off ormosa in the monotypic genus Nilssonia, KORDIKOVA (1991b), who advocated for the inclusion of Palea steindachneri and also the North American Apalone mutica in the subtribe Pelodiscina, and WELCH (1994), who, erroneously quoting DAS (1991) and without any further explanation, placed the genus Lissemys in the subfamily Trionychinae, most authorities (e.g. ERNST & BARBOUR 1989, KING & BURKE 1989, IVERSON 1992) adopted the proposed classification. The catalogue of the fossil trionychids found in the former Soviet Union produced by KORDIKOVA (1991a), and her review of the taxa known from Kazakhstan (KORDIKOVA 1991b), in which new tribes were erected to include the genera Axestemys and Ulutrionyx (tribe Ulutrionychini), and Paraplestomenus (tribe Paraplestomenini), are more recent attempts, but the relationships of the extinct members of the family Trionychidae remain chaotic. MEYLAN (in litt.) is presently preparing a study incorporating all fossil forms, so this paper is only meant as an introduction and a preliminary contribution to the subject.
