Szabó János szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 20. 2002. (Budapest, 2002)

20 HÍR, J. & MÉSZÁROS, L. GY Figure 12 — Scatter diagram of the M

1 mean L and mean W values of some European Megacricetodon populations. Megacricetodon cf. minor, A: Anwil (BOLLIGER 1992) Sh: Sandelzhausen (SACH 1999) Ft: Felsőtárkány, unpublished Megacricetodon minor Msz: Mátraszőlős (GÁL et al, 1999, 2000) Nb: Nebelbergweg (KÁLIN & ENGESSER 2001) Mo: Mohrenhausen (SACH 1999) San: Sansan (BAUDELOT 1972) La: Laimering (BOLLIGER 1994) He: Fïelsighausen (BOLLIGER 1994) Zh: Ziemethausen (BOLLIGER 1994) Göt: Göttschlag (BOLLIGER 1994) Go: Goldberg (BOLLIGER 1994) Sag: Sagentobel (BOLLIGER 1994) U: UnterneuUa (BOLLIGER 1994) Ha: Hasznos (KORDOS 1986) Sám: Sámsonháza 3 Rü: Rümikon (BOLLIGER 1994) Megacriceto don s im His G: Grat (BOLLIGER 1992) A: Anwil (BOLLIGER 1992) Figure 13 — Scatter diagram of the mi mean L and mean W values of some European Megacricetodon populations. —The explanation refers to Figure 12. Genus Democricetodon FAHLBUSCH, 1964 Democricetodon sp. Material and measurements L W L w 1 1 M

2 1.53 mm 1.30 mm 1 rm 1.40 mm 1.19 mm 1 1M

2 — The most important morphological markers of the M2 molar are the equally developed lingual and buccal arm of the anterocingulum, the anterior connection between the protocone and the paracone, the middle developed mesolophe and the short, posteriorly directed metalophule. lrm — The molar is strongly worn. Without Ml or ml molars the correct determination is impossible. In the Hungarian Middle Miocene D. hasznosensis is known from Hasznos, D. cf. frásingensis andD. mutilus are known from Mátraszőlős 2. (GÁL et al. 2000). All these localities are found in the close surroundings of Pásztó. Genus Cricetodon LARTET, 1851 Cricetodon cf. hungaricus (KORDOS, 1986) The morphological nomenclature and the measurements are after MELN & FREUDENTHAL (1971). The individual measurements are given in the enclosed table 16. Ml (Figure 14: 1-2) — The anterocone is mainly divided or in one molar (Figure 14: 1) undivided. The labial part of the anterocone bears a well-developed ectolophe. This element is missing in one molar. In 3 molars the protostyle is advanced, but lingual eperon is missing. In one molar (Figure 14: 1) the anterolophule has a long lingual eperon which is connected to the protostyle. Anterior connection of the protocone and paracone is not found. The posterior ectolophe of the paracone is developed in every molar. The mesolophe is short, or connected to the anterior surface of the metacone. The mesolophe and the ectolophe are not connected and not form a closed island. M2 (Figure 14: 3) — The labial part of the anterolophe is short and strong, the lingual part is long, but thin. The paracone has an anterior, and a posterior ectolophe (Figure 14: 3). Mesolophe and central island is missing. M

3 (Figure 14: 4) — The basic structure is similar to the M2 molars, but the hypocone and the metacone are reduced (Figure 14: 4). The posterior ectolophe of the paracone is long in all the 4 molars and a long mesolophe is found as well. Closed island between the paracone and the mesolophe is found in the molars noumbered 1/4, 1/35, 5/4. mi — The anteroconid is undivided and labially continued in a cingulum reaching the anterior wall of the protoconid (Figure 14: 5) The simple anterolophulid connects the anteroconid and the protoconid. Mesolophid is missing, but a short and thin ectomesolophid is