Advertisement

Paläontologische Zeitschrift

, Volume 89, Issue 4, pp 1023–1038 | Cite as

Two new species of Prolagus (Lagomorpha, Mammalia) from the Late Miocene of Hungary: taxonomy, biochronology, and palaeobiogeography

  • Chiara Angelone
  • Stanislav Čermák
Research Paper

Abstract

The present study describes two new species, Prolagus pannonicus sp. nov. and P. latiuncinatus sp. nov., from the Late Miocene Hungarian localities Sümeg (MN10/11) and Polgárdi 2 (MN13). These species are closely related, probably by a direct ancestor–descendant relationship. They share characters common to Late Miocene–Pliocene eastern European species (e.g., the retention of the entoconid enamel in p3 contrarily to coeval western European ones), attesting to an eastern European group of Prolagus that evolved independently from western European species at least since MN10/11. Nevertheless, the two Hungarian species of Prolagus here described follow particular evolutionary trends: contrarily to other European Late Miocene species, their p3 does not undergo a substantial size increase after MN12, whereas the crochet size enlarges noticeably. Special emphasis is given to the comparison of P. pannonicus sp. nov. and P. latiuncinatus sp. nov. with the Gargano insular endemic Prolagus species. Their common morphological traits are related to convergence due to endemism. Prolagus pannonicus sp. nov. and P. latiuncinatus sp. nov. probably were continental isolated species.

Keywords

Prolagus pannonicus sp. nov P. latiuncinatus sp. nov Hungary Late Miocene Evolutionary trends Isolated species 

Abbreviations

AA

Partial width

CFUS

Collezione Fondi, Università di Siena

D/d

Upper/lower deciduous teeth

ICP

Institut Català de Paleontologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

L

Length

M/m

Upper/lower molar

MFGI

Magyar Földtani és Geofizikai Intézet [Hungarian Institute of Geology and Geophysics]

MNM

Colección Sesé, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales de Madrid

N

Number of specimens

NHMB

Natural History Museum in Basel

NHM-UF

Natural History Museum (Geology and Palaeontology Section), University of Florence

NMW

Naturhistorisches Museum Wien

P/p

Upper/lower premolar

PH

Hypoflexus width

SMF

Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt

TH

Distal hyperloph length

UFST

Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Firenze

W

Width

ZPAL

Institute of Palaeobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa

Kurzfassung

Die vorliegende Studie beschreibt zwei neue Arten: Prolagus pannonicus sp. nov. und P. latiuncinatus sp. nov. aus den spätmiozänen ungarischen Lokalitäten Sümeg (MN10/11) und Polgárdi 2 (MN13). Diese Arten sind eng verwandt, wahrscheinlich über eine direkte Vorfahren-Nachkommen-Beziehung. Sie teilen Merkmale, die spätmiozän-pliozänen osteuropäischen Arten gemein sind (z. B. den Erhalt des Entoconid-Schmelzes an p3 im Gegensatz zu zeitgenössischen westeuropäischen Arten), und bezeugen so eine osteuropäische Abstammungslinie, die bereits seit MN10/11 von den westeuropäischen getrennt verläuft. Allerdings folgen die beiden hier beschriebenen ungarischen Arten des Prolagus besonderen Evolutionstrends: Im Gegensatz zu anderen spätmiozänen europäischen Arten vergrößert sich ihr p3 nach MN12 nicht substantiell; es zeigt sich hingegen eine bemerkenswerte Vergrößerung des Crochet. Besonderes Gewicht wird auf den Vergleich von P. pannonicus sp. nov. und P. latiuncinatus sp. nov. mit dem insular-endemischen Prolagus aus dem Gargano gelegt. Ihre gemeinsamen morphologischen Merkmale hängen mit Konvergenz aufgrund von Endemismus zusammen. Wahrscheinlich waren Prolagus pannonicus sp. nov. und P. latiuncinatus sp. nov. kontinental isolierte Arten.

Schlüsselwörter

Prolagus pannonicus sp. nov. P. latiuncinatus sp. nov. Ungarn Spätmiozän Evolutionstrends Isolierte Arten 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to E. Bodor (MFGI), L. Costeur and B. Engesser (NHMB), and L. Kordos (MFGI) for kindly allowing access to the collections under their care. L. Kordos also provided precious information about the historical/biochronological background of the analyzed fossiliferous sites, and E. Bodor gave her invaluable help with papers in Hungarian. We are also grateful to M. Gasparik (Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Budapest) and P. Mazza (UFST) who provided useful bibliographical material; to I. Horáček (Charles University, Prague) and the referees J. Prieto (Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich) and M. Sabol (Comenius University, Bratislava) for their valuable suggestions; to Melanie Kunkel (Università “Sapienza” di Roma) for kindly translating the abstract in German language. This work was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CGL2011–28681) and by the RVO67985831 of the Institute of Geology AS CR, v.v.i., C.A. received support from the SYNTHESYS Project (http://www.synthesys.info/), financed by European Community Research Infrastructure Action under the FP6 ‘Structuring the European Research Area’ (Project: HU–TAF–3145).

References

  1. Angelone, C. 2007. Messinian Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia) of Italy. Geobios 40: 407–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelone, C. 2008. Prolagus italicus n. sp. (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia) a new Pliocene species of peninsular Italy. Geobios 41: 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelone, C. 2009. Lagomorphs from the Middle Miocene of Sandelzhausen (southern Germany). Paläontologische Zeitschrift 83: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelone, C., S. Colombero, D. Esu, P. Giuntelli, F. Marcolini, M. Pavia, S. Trenkwalder, L.W. van den Hoek Ostende, M. Zunino, and G. Pavia. 2011. Moncucco Torinese, a new post-evaporitic Messinian fossiliferous site from Piedmont (NW Italy). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 259: 89–104.Google Scholar
  5. Angelone, C., and J. Hír. 2012. Alloptox katinkae sp. nov. (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha), westernmost Eurasian record of the genus from the Early Middle Miocene vertebrate fauna of Litke 2 (N Hungary). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 264(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  6. Angelone, C., J. Prieto, and M. Gross. 2014. Complement to the study of the pikas (Lagomorpha, Ochotonidae) from Gratkorn. In The Sarmatian vertebrate locality Gratkorn, Styrian Basin, eds. Böhme, M., M. Gross, and J. Prieto. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 94(1): 125–134.Google Scholar
  7. Angelone, C., and L. Rook. 2011. Alilepus meini n. sp., a new leporid (Leporidae, Lagomorpha) from the Early Messinian of Tuscany (central western Italy). Geobios 44: 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Angelone, C., and C. Sesé. 2009. New characters for species discrimination within the genus Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia). Journal of Paleontology 8: 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Angelone, C., C. Tuveri, M. Arca, N. López Martínez, and T. Kotsakis. 2008. Evolution of Prolagus sardus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha) in the Quaternary of Sardinia island (Italy). Quaternary International 182: 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Angelone, C. and K. Veitschegger. 2014. MN10 Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha) from Austria: a new tile for the central European palaeobiogeography of the genus. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Paläontologie 275(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  11. Averianov, A.O., and A.C. Tesakov. 1998. The Lagomorpha (Mammalia) from the Early Pliocene Kosyakino locality of the northern Caucasus. Paleontological Journal 3: 91–96. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. Bachmayer, F., and R.W. Wilson. 1970. Die Fauna der altpliozänen Höhlen– und Spaltenfüllungen bei Kohfidisch, Burgenland (Österreich). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 74: 533–587.Google Scholar
  13. Berggren, W.A., D.V. Kent., C.C. Swisher, and M.-P. Aubry. 1995. A revised Cenozoic Geochronology and Chronostratigraphy. In Geochronology time scales and global stratigraphic correlations: a unified temporal framework for a historical geology, eds. Berggren, W.A., D.V. Kent, and J. Hardenbol, 129–212, Tulsa: SEPM Special Publication No. 54.Google Scholar
  14. Bernor, R.L., T.M. Kaiser, L. Kordos, and R.S. Scott. 1999. Stratigraphic context, systematic position and paleoecology of Hippotherium sumegense Kretzoi 1984 from MN 10 (Late Vallesian) of the Pannonian basin. Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und historischen Geologie 39: 1–35.Google Scholar
  15. Berzi, A. 1967. Lagomorphs from the type Villafranchian of Villafranca d’Asti (Italy). Committee Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy, Preliminary note. Giornale di Geologia 35: 1–14.Google Scholar
  16. Bolkay, I. 1913. Additions to the fossil herpetology of Hungary from the Pannonian and Preglacial Period. Mitteilungen aus dem Jahrbuche der Königlichen Ungarischen geologischen Reichstalt 21(7): 217–230.Google Scholar
  17. Brandt, J.F. 1855. Beiträge zur näheren Kenntniss der Säugethiere Russlands. Mémoire de l’Académie impériale des Sciences, St. Petersburg, Physique, Mathématique, et Naturalistique Séries 6(9): 1–365.Google Scholar
  18. Čermák, S., and C. Angelone. 2013. Revision of the type material of the Pliocene species Prolagus bilobus Heller, 1936 (Mammalia, Lagomorpha) with comments on the taxonomic validity of P. osmolskae Fostowicz-Frelik, 2010. Bulletin of Geosciences 88(1): 45–50.Google Scholar
  19. Čermák, S., C. Angelone, and L. Rekovets. 2012. The Late Miocene–Pliocene Prolagus of Central and Eastern Europe. In The 4th World Lagomorph Conference, Volume of Abstracts 36, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  20. de Bruijn, H. 1995. The vertebrate locality Maramena (Macedonia, Greece) at the Turolian–Ruscinian boundary (Neogene). 11—Lagomorpha (Mammalia). Münchner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen A 28: 133–136.Google Scholar
  21. de Bruijn, H., R. Daams, G. Daxner-Höck, V. Fahlbusch, L. Ginsburg, P. Mein, and J. Morales. 1992. Report of the RCMNS working group on fossil mammals, Reisensburg 1990. Newsletters on Stratigraphy 26(2–3): 65–118.Google Scholar
  22. Delinschi, A. 2014. Late Miocene lagomorphs from the Republic of Moldova. Annales de Paléontologie 100: 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dubrovo, I.A., and K.V. Kapelist. 1979. Catalogue of the localities of Tertiary vertebrates of the Ukrainian SSR. Moscow: Nauka. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  24. Erbajeva, M.A., S. Montuire, and J. Chaline. 2001. New ochotonids (Lagomorpha) from the Pleistocene of France. Geodiversitas 23: 395–409.Google Scholar
  25. Fejérváry-Lángh, A.M. 1923. Beiträge zu einer Monographie der fossilen Ophisaurier. Palaeontologia Hungarica 1: 121–220.Google Scholar
  26. Fejfar, O., and W.-D. Heinrich. 1987. Zur biostratigraphischen Gliederung des jüngeren Känozoikums in Europe an Hand von Muriden und Cricetiden (Rodentia, Mammalia). Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii 32(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  27. Fejfar, O., W.-D. Heinrich, M.A. Pevzner, and E.A. Vangengeim. 1997. Late Cenozoic sequences of mammalian sites in Eurasia: an updated correlation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 133: 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feru, M., C. Radulesco, and P. Samson. 1980. La faune de Micromammifères du Miocène de Tauţ (dép. d’Arad). Travaux de L’Institut de SpeologieEmile Racovitza’ 28: 185–190.Google Scholar
  29. Freudenthal, M., and L. Kordos. 1989. Cricetus polgardiensis sp. nov. and Cricetus kormosi Schaub, 1930 from the Late Miocene Polgárdi localities (Hungary). Scripta Geologica 89: 71–100.Google Scholar
  30. Godina, A.Ya., and A.I. David. 1973. Neogene Localities of Vertebrates in Moldavian SSR. Chisinau: Shtiintsa.Google Scholar
  31. Heller, F. 1936. Eine oberpliozäne Wirbeltierfauna aus Rheinhessen. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilage-Band 76(Abt. B): 99–160.Google Scholar
  32. Hír, J. 2006. Late Astaracian (Late Sarmatian) Lagomorphs and Rodents from Felsőtárkány-Felnémet (northern Hungary). Beiträge zur Paläontologie 30: 155–173.Google Scholar
  33. Hír, J., C. Angelone, J. Kessler, J. Prieto, L. van den Hoek Ostende, and M. Venczel 2014. Early Badenian (MN5) vertebrate fauna from Litke. In 17th Annual Meeting of the Hungarian Paleontologists, Volume of Abstracts 18–19. Győr, Hungary. [in Hungarian].Google Scholar
  34. Hír, J., and J. Kókay. 2010. A systematic study of the Middle–Late Miocene rodents and lagomorphs (Mammalia) of Felsőtárkány 3/8 and 3/10 (Northern Hungary) with stratigraphical relations. Geodiversitas 32(2): 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoek Ostende, van den L.W., H.J.M. Meijer, and A.A.E. van der Geer. 2009. A bridge too far. Comment on “Processes of Island colonization by Oligo-Mioceneland mammals in the central Mediterranean: New data from Scontrone (Abruzzo, Central Italy) and Gargano (Apulia, Southern Italy)” by P.P.A. MAzza and M. Rustioni [Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 267 (2008) 208–215]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 279: 128–130.Google Scholar
  36. Hordijk, K., and A. van der Meulen. 2010. Systematics of immigrant species of Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia) from the Late Early and Middle Miocene of north–eastern Central Spain, Chapter 3. Geologica Ultraiectina 333: 87–116, pls 3.1–3.8.Google Scholar
  37. ICZN. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th ed. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.Google Scholar
  38. Jánossy, D. 1991. Late Miocene bird remains from Polgardi (W-Hungary). Aquila 98: 13–35.Google Scholar
  39. Kadić, O., and M. Kretzoi. 1927. Vorlaufiger Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in der Csakvarer Hohlung. [in Hungarian, German]. Barlangkutatas 14–15: 1–19.Google Scholar
  40. Kázmér, M. 1990. Birth, life and death of the Pannonian Lake. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 79: 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. König, C.D.E. 1825. Icones fossilium sectiles. Centuria prima. Privately published, London, 4 pp., 19 pls.Google Scholar
  42. Kordos, L. 1987. Karstocricetus skofleki gen. n, sp. n. and the evolution of the Late Neogene Cricetidae in the Carpathian Basin. Fragmenta Mineralogica et Palaeontologica 13: 65–88.Google Scholar
  43. Kordos, L. 1989. Anomalomyidae (Mammalia, Rodentia) Remains from the Neogene of Hungary. Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Jelentése az 1987. évről: 293–311.Google Scholar
  44. Kordos, L. 2008. Stratigraphic correlation of the major Middle and Upper Miocene vertebrate localities of Hungary. In Explanatory Book to the Geological Map of the Vertes Hills 1:50.000, eds. Budai, T., and L. Fodor, 103. Budapest: Geological Institute of Hungary.Google Scholar
  45. Kormos, T. 1910. Über seine Grabungen bei Polgárdi. Földtani Közlöny 40: 451–452.Google Scholar
  46. Kormos, T. 1911. Der pliozäne Knochenfund bei Polgárdi (Vorläufiger Bericht). Földtani Közlöny 41: 171–189.Google Scholar
  47. Kormos, T. 1913. Trois nouvelles espèces fossiles de Desmans en Hongrie. Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 11: 135–146.Google Scholar
  48. Kormos, T. 1926. Amblyctopus oligodon n. g. n. sp. Eine neue Spitzmaus aus dem ungarischen Pliozän. Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 24: 352–391.Google Scholar
  49. Kormos, T. 1934. Az euráziai nyulak származástani problémája—Zur Frage der Abstammung eurasiatischer Hasen. Allatani Közlemények 31: 65–78.Google Scholar
  50. Kormos, T. 1940. Spuren der Gattung Ochotona im ungarischen Präglazial. Mathematikai és természettudományi értesítő 59(3): 937–942.Google Scholar
  51. Kretzoi, M. 1942. Eomellivora von Polgárdi und Csákvár. Földtani Közlöny 72: 318–323.Google Scholar
  52. Kretzoi, M. 1952. Die Raubtiere der Hipparionfauna von Polgardi. Annales Instituti Geologici Hungarici 40(3): 5–42.Google Scholar
  53. Kretzoi, M. 1969. Sketch of the Late Cenozoic (Pliocene and Quaternary) terrestrial stratigraphy of Hungary. Földrajzi Közlemények 17(3): 198–204.Google Scholar
  54. Kretzoi, M. 1982a. Fontosabb Szórványleletek a MÁFI Gerinces. Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Jelentése 1980ről [Annual Report of the Hungarian Geological Institute on 1980]: 385–394.Google Scholar
  55. Kretzoi, M. 1982b. A KárpátMedence FelsőNeozóos Rétegtanának Korrelációs Lehetőségei. Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Jelentése 1980ről: 407–416.Google Scholar
  56. Kretzoi, M. 1984. The fauna and faunal age of Sümeg-Gerinc. Geologica Hungarica: Series Geologica 20: 225–234. [in Hungarian].Google Scholar
  57. Kretzoi, M. 1987. A Kárpát–medence pannóniai (s.1.) terresztrikus gerinces biokronológiája. Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Évkönyve 69: 409–422.Google Scholar
  58. Kretzoi, M., and M. Pécsi. 1982. A Pannóniai–medence pliocén és pleisztocen időszakanak tagolasa [Pliocene and Pleistocene Development and Chronology of the Pannonian Basin]. Földrajzi Közlemények 30(4): 300–326.Google Scholar
  59. Kvaček, Z., M. Kováč, J. Kovar-Eder, N. Doláková, H. Jechorek, V. Parashiv, M. Slamková, and L. Sliva. 2006. Evolution of landscape and vegetation in the Central Paratethys area during the Miocene. Geologica Carpathica 57(4): 295–310.Google Scholar
  60. López Martínez, N. 1974. Évolution de la lignée Piezodus-Prolagus (Lagomorpha, Ochotonidae) dans le Cénozoïque d’Europe sud-Occidentale. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Université des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, 165 p.Google Scholar
  61. López Martínez, N. 1976. Lagomorpha from the Turolian of Pikermi (Greece). Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen 79: 235–244.Google Scholar
  62. López Martínez, N. 1977. Nuevos lagomorfos (Mammalia) del Terciario y Cuaternario de España. Trabajos sobre Neógeno y Cuaternario 8: 7–45.Google Scholar
  63. López Martínez, N. 1978. Cladistique et paléontologie. Application à la phylogénie des Ochotonidés européens (Lagomorpha Mammalia). Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 20: 821–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. López Martínez, N. 1989. Revisión sistemática y biostratigráfica de los Lagomorpha (Mammalia) del Terciario y Cuaternario de España. Memorias del Museo Paleontológico de la Universidad de Zaragoza 3: 1–342.Google Scholar
  65. López Martínez, N., and L. Thaler. 1975. Biogéographie, évolution et compléments à la systématique du groupe d’Ochotonides Piezodus–Prolagus (Mammalia, Lagomorpha). Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 17: 850–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lungu, A.N. 1981. Gipparionovaia fauna srednego Sarmata Moldavii (Insectivora, Lagomorpha, Rodentia). Chisinau: Shtiintsa.Google Scholar
  67. Lungu, A.N., and B. Rzebik-Kowalska. 2011. Faunal assemblages, stratigraphy and taphonomy of the Late Miocene localities in the Republic of Moldova. Kraków: Institute of systematics and evolution of animals, Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
  68. Magyar, I., D.H. Geary, and P. Müller. 1999. Paleogeographic evolution of the Late Miocene Lake Pannon in Central Europe. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 147: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Magyar, I., D. Radivojević, O. Sztanó, R. Synak, K. Ujszászi, and M. Pócsik. 2013. Progradation of the paleo-Danube shelf margin across the Pannonian Basin during the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene. Global and Planetary Change 103: 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Major, C.I.F. 1905. Rodents from the Pleistocene of the Western Mediterranean region. Geological Magazine 2: 462–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marković, Z., and M. Milivojević. 2010. The Neogene small mammals from Serbia—Collection, methods and results. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum in Belgrade 3: 105–114.Google Scholar
  72. Masini, F. 1989. Prolagus sorbinii n. sp., a new ochotonid (Mammalia, Lagomorpha) from the Messinian of Italy. Bolletino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 28: 295–306.Google Scholar
  73. Mazza, P. 1986a. Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia) from Neogene fissure fillings in Gargano (Southern Italy). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 25: 159–186.Google Scholar
  74. Mazza, P. 1986b. Further data on the Gargano (Southern Italy) Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 25: 203–212.Google Scholar
  75. Mazza, P. 1987. Prolagus apricenicus and Prolagus imperialis: two new Ochotonids (Lagomorpha, Mammalia) of the Gargano (Southern Italy). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 26: 233–244.Google Scholar
  76. Mazza, P.P.A., and M. Rustioni. 2008. Processes of Island colonization by Oligo-Mioceneland mammals in the central Mediterranean: new data from Scontrone (Abruzzo, Central Italy) and Gargano (Apulia, Southern Italy). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 267: 208–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mazza, P., M. Rustioni, G. Aruta, and E. Di Carlo. 1995. A Messinian Prolagus from Capo di Fiume Quarry (Palena, Abruzzo, Central Italy). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 34: 55–66.Google Scholar
  78. Mazza, P., and F. Zafonte. 1987. Phyletic and ecologic considerations on the Gargano (Southern Italy) Prolagus (Ochotonidae, Lagomorpha, Mammalia). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 26: 221–231.Google Scholar
  79. Mein, P. 1990. Updating of MN zones. In European Neogene mammal chronology, ed. E.H. Lindsay, V. Fahlbusch, and P. Mein, 73–90. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mészáros, L.G. 1997. Kordosia, a new genus for some Late Miocene Amblycoptini shrews (Mammalia, Insectivora). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Monatshefte 2: 65–78.Google Scholar
  81. Mészáros, L.G. 1998. A magyarországi késő miocén cickányok (Soricidae) paleoökológiai jelentősége. Állatani Közlemények 83: 41–52.Google Scholar
  82. Mészáros, L.G. 1999a. Néhány tafonómiai megfigyelés magyarországi felső miocén Soricidae (Mammalia) maradványokon. Some taphonomical observations on Late Miocene Soricids (Mammalia). Földtani Közlöny 129(2): 159–178.Google Scholar
  83. Mészáros, L.G. 1999b. An exeptionally rich Soricidae (Mammalia) fauna from the Late Miocene localities of Polgárdi (Hungary). Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis, Sectio Geologica 32: 5–32.Google Scholar
  84. Mészáros, L.G. 2000. Paleogeography and environment of the Late Miocene Soricidae (Mammalia) faunae of the Pannonian Basin. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis, Sectio Geologica 33: 107–120.Google Scholar
  85. Mihály, S. 1975. Ujabb Pikermi–jellegü gerincesfauna előfordulás a Polgárdi-Ipartelepek nagykőfejtőjében [A new occurrence of Pikermi-type Vertebrata in the Big Quarry of Polgárdi-Ipartelepek, Transdanubia, Hungary]. Őslénytani viták 22: 89–93.Google Scholar
  86. Nargolwalla, M.C., M.P. Hutchinson, and D.R. Begun. 2006. Middle and Late Miocene terrestrial vertebrate localities and paleoenvironments in the Pannonian Basin. Beiträge zur Paläontologie 30: 319–332.Google Scholar
  87. Nesin, V.A., and A. Nadachowski. 2001. Late Miocene and Pliocene small mammal faunas (Insectivora, Lagomorpha, Rodentia) of Southeastern Europe. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 44(2): 107–135.Google Scholar
  88. Pohlig, H. 1911. Über Cervus loczyi Pohlig n.sp. In Die fossile Säugetierfauna der Umgebung des Plattensees. Resultate der wissenschaftlichen Erforschung des Balatonsees, ed. Kadić, O., 1–4. Wien: Hölzel.Google Scholar
  89. Pomel, A. 1853. Catalogue méthodique et descriptif des vertébrés fossiles découverts dans le bassin hydrographique supérieur de la Loire, et surtout dans la vallée de son affluent principal l’Allier. Paris: Baillière.Google Scholar
  90. Popov, S.V., F. Rögel, A.Y. Royanov, F.F. Steininger, I.G. Shcherba, and M. Kováč (eds). 2004. Lithological–paleogeographic maps of Paratethys. 10 Maps Late Eocene to Pliocene. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 250: 1–46.Google Scholar
  91. Popov, S.V., I.G. Shcherba, L.B. Ilyina, L.A. Nevesskaya, N.P. Paramonova, S.O. Khondkarian, and I. Magyar. 2006. Late Miocene to Pliocene palaeogeography of the Paratethys and its relation to the Mediterranean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 238(1–4): 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rabeder, G. 1985. Die Säugetiere des Pannonien. In Chronostratigraphie und Neostratotypen. Miozän der Zentralen Paratethys. M6 Pannonien, eds. Papp, A., A. Jambor, and F. Steininger, 440–463. Budapest: Ungarischer Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  93. Rabeder, G. 1989. Die Säugetiere des Pontien in Österreich und Ungarn. Jugoslawische Akademie der Wissenschaften und Künste 8: 821–836.Google Scholar
  94. Rekovets, L.I., and A.V. Pashkov. 2009. New localities of small Late Neogene mammals in Ukraine. Proceedings of the IGS of the NAS of Ukraine: 354–360. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  95. Rook, L., and M. Delfino. 2007. The prehistoric fauna from Brisighella and the Late Miocene continental faunas of the Mediterranean area. In The geological park and museum of Cava Monticino, Brisighella. A guide and a story, ed. Sami, A., 97–121. Faenza: Carta Bianca.Google Scholar
  96. Sala, B., and F. Masini. 2007. Late Pliocene and Pleistocene small mammal chronology in the Italian peninsula. Quaternary International 160: 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schlesinger, G. 1922. Die Mastodonten der Budapester Sammlungen. (Untersuchungen über Morphologie, Phylogenie, Ethologie und Stratigraphie europäischer Mastodonten. Geologica Hungarica, Series Geologica 2(1): 1–284.Google Scholar
  98. Schweitzer, F. 2001. A Kárpát–medence félsivatagi és sztyepsíkság–formálódása és a messinai sókrízis. [Formation of semidesert and steppe plains in the Carpathian Basin and the Messinian salinity crisis] Földrajzi Értesítő 50(1–4): 9–31.Google Scholar
  99. Sinitsa, M.V. 2009. A new small mammal fauna from the lower Turolian (11 MN) of the southern Ukraine. In Mediul şi Dezvoltarea Durabilă, ed. Materialele Simpozionului Jubiliar International, 182–183. Chişinău: Labirint.Google Scholar
  100. Steininger, F.F. 1999. The Continental European Miocene. Chronostratigraphy, Geochronology and Biostratigraphy of the Miocene ‘European Land Mammal Mega-Zones’ (ELMMZ) and the Miocene ‘Mammal-Zones (MN-Zones)’. In Land mammals of Europe, eds. Rössner, G.E., and K. Heissig, 9–24. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
  101. Szalay, T. 1934. Die fossilen Schildkroten Ungams. Folia zoologica et hydrobiologica 6(2): 97–142.Google Scholar
  102. Szunyoghy, J. 1932. Beitrage zur vergleichenden Formenlehre des Colubridenschadels, nebst einer kraniologischen Synopsis der fossilen Schlangen ungarns mit nomenklatorischen, systematischen und phyletischen Bemerkungen. Acta Zoologica 13: 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Szyndlar, Z. 1991a. A review of Neogene and Quaternary snakes of Central and Eastern Europe. Part I. Scolecophidia, Boidae, Colubrinae. Estudios Geológicos 47(1–2): 103–126.Google Scholar
  104. Szyndlar, Z. 1991b. A review of Neogene and Quaternary snakes of Central and Eastern Europe. Part II. Natricinae, Elapidae, Viperidae. Estudios Geológicos 47(3–4): 237–266.Google Scholar
  105. ter Borgh, M., I. Vasiliev, M. Stoica, S. Knežević, L. Matenco, W. Krijgsman, L. Rundić, and S. Cloetingh. 2013. The isolation of the Pannonian basin (Central Paratethys): new constraints from magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy. Global and Planetary Change 103: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Thomas, O. 1897. On the genera of rodents: an attempt to bring up to date the current arrangement of the order. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1896: 1112–1128.Google Scholar
  107. Tobien, H. 1963. Zur Gebiβ-Entwicklung tertiärer Lagomorphen (Mamm.) Europas. Notizblatt des Hessischen Landesamtes für Bodenforschung zu Wiesbaden 91: 16–35.Google Scholar
  108. Vasileiadou, K.V., G.D. Koufos, and G.E. Syrides. 2003. Silata, a new locality with micromammals from the Miocene/Pliocene boundary of the Chalkidiki peninsula, Macedonia, Greece. In Distribution and migration of tertiary mammals in Eurasia. A volume in honour of Hans de Bruijn, eds. Reumer, J.W.F., and W. Wessels. Deinsea 10: 549–562.Google Scholar
  109. Vasileiadou, K., G. Konidaris, and G.D. Koufos. 2012. New data on the micromammalian locality of Kessani (Thrace, Greece) at the Mio-Pliocene boundary. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 92(2): 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Venczel, M. 1994. Late Miocene snakes from Polgárdi (Hungary). Acta zoologica Cracoviensia 37(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
  111. Venczel, M. 1997. Late Miocene anurans from Polgárdi (Hungary). In Herpetologia Bonnensis, ed. W. Böhme, W. Bischoff, and T. Ziegler, 383–389. Bonn: SEH.Google Scholar
  112. Venczel, M. 1998. Late Miocene snakes (Reptilia: Serpentes) from Polgárdi (Hungary): a second contribution. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 41: 1–22.Google Scholar
  113. Venczel, M. 2006. Lizards from the Late Miocene of Polgárdi (W-Hungary). Nymphaea, Folia naturae Bihariae 33: 25–38.Google Scholar
  114. Viret, J., and S. Schaub. 1946. Le genre Anomalomys, rongeur néogène et sa repartition stratigraphique. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 39: 342–352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paläontologische Gesellschaft 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grup de Recerca de Faunes del Neogen i QuaternariInstitut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaCerdanyola del Vallès, BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Palaeobiology and PalaeoecologyInstitute of Geology AS CR, v. v. i.Prague 6-LysolajeCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations