Szabó János szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 23. 2005. (Budapest, 2005)

Figure 21 — Occlusal surfaces of Collimys dobosi rm molars. — 1 = 2003.364, morphotype Oo; 2 = 2003.362, morphotype Ao; 3 = 2003.365, morphotype Ao; 4 = 2003.367, morphotype Ao; 5 = 2003.370, morphotype AX. In one molar the ectolophid is missing and the anterior part of the molar (protoconid-metaconid-mesolophid system) is divided from the posterior part (hypoconid-entoconid-posterolophid system: Figure 21: 1.). The most frequent morphological configuration is "00". This consisst of the simultaneous missing of the lingual anterocingulum and the ectomesolophid. Figure 22 — Scatter diagram of the mean length and mean width values of some Democricetodon and Colimys lower mi-m2-m3 molars. The data are after HEISSIG 1995, KÄLIN & ENGESSER 2001. — 1 = Democricetodon gaillardi, Steinheim; 2 = Democricetodon freisingensis, Giggenhausen; 3 = Democricetodon affinis, La Grive; 4 = Democricetodon mutilus, Bellingshausen; 5 = Democricetodon aff. freisingensis, Sansan; 6 = Collimys dobosi, Felsőtárkány 3/2; 7 = Collimys longidens, Nebelbergweg; 8 = Democricetodon affinis, Steinheim; 9 = Democricetodon mutilus, Langenmoosen; 10 = Collimys transvenus, Steinheim (mi, m2only). Differential diagnosis Collimys dobosi n. sp. differs from Collimys primus DAXNER-HÖCK, 1972 in lower degree of hypsodonty (Figure 23); in more complicate anteroconid-anterolophulid region of the mi and in presence of the lingual anterolophule in the M

2

. Collimys dobosi n. sp. differs from Collimys transversus HEISSIG, 1995 in the higher degree of the hypsodonty (Figure 23), in the larger measurements, in the dominance of the Cmorphotype group in the anterior region of the mi, in the presence of the lingual anterolophule in the M

2 and in the occurence of extra enamel ridge in the metalophule of M

1 (18%) andM

2 (43%). Collimys dobosi n. sp. differs from Collimys longidens KAI JN & ENGESSER, 2001 in larger measurements; in absence of the "labial anterolophulid spur" in the anterior region of the ml; in the occurence of an extra enamel ridge in the metalophule of M

1 (18%) and M

2 (43%); in presence of die lingual anterolophule in the M

2

; in dominance of morphotypes having an anterior metalophule in the M

3 and in relatively longer rm (after the XLmV XLrm ratio: Figure 22). Colimys dobosi n. sp. differs from Democricetodon freisingensis FAHLBUSCH, 1964 and Democricetodon gaillardi (SCHAUB, 1925) in deeper and narrower synclines and synclinids; in stronger and higher anteromesolophes, mesolophes and mesolophids; in a higher frequency of shorter mesolophes in the M

1 ; in the formation of the flat chewing surface in adult ontogenetic phase, involving the transversal ridges; in the occurence of an extra enamel ridge in the metalophule of M

1 (18%) and M

2 (43%) molars, and in relatively longer m3 molars (after the XLm2/XLm.3 ratio: Figure 22). g? Collimys dobosi n. sp. differs from Pseudocollimys DAXNER-HÖCK, 2004 genus in lower degree of hypsodonty (Figure 23); in presence of well developed and high transversal ridges (anteromesoloph, mesoloph, mesolophid, ectomesolophid); in presence of a longer and frequently two or three branched anterolophulid of the ml, and in a relatively longer m3 (after the Xlm2/Xlm3 ratio: Figure 22). Collimys dobosi n. sp. differs from Kßwalskia FAHLBUSCH, 1969 in deeper and narrower synclines and synclinids, in the formation of a flat chewing surface in the adult ontogenetic phase, and in an undivided anterocone of the Ml

. Figure 23 molars. Buccal view of three Collimys dobosi M

1 1 = 2003.1.; 2 = 2003.3.; 3 = 2003.4.