taxonID	type	description	language	source
03A2BA4EDF48FF89FC2BDB8FFCEC43AE.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Many authors give Fischer de Waldheim or Fischer von Waldheim as author of the family Dipodidae. However, Hutterer (2003) stated: " Fischer was elevated to nobility in 1835, and then adopted the title von Waldheim. His earlier work should be cited as Fischer. "	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF48FF89FC2BDB8FFCEC43AE.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Plesiosminthus schaubi Viret, 1926.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF49FF8EFF52D834FEE34488.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Puy-de-Montdoury, MP 28, France. Holotype. Schaub (1925) classified two m 3 from Puy-de-Montdoury as? Cricetodon spec. One is extremely worn and was not described. He described the other one (Au 1214) in detail and figured it (Schaub, 1925, plate 2, figure 10). Later, Schaub (1930) placed the two aforementioned m 3 from Puy-de-Montdoury in a new species, Plesiosminthus promyarion, whose type material also includes a M 2 with double protolophule from Rickenbach, Germany. Schaub (1930) did not designate a holotype. Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980) designated the specimen Au 1214 as the holotype, but in fact it is a lectotype. Such type material is clearly insufficient to define a species of Plesiosminthus, or, in other words, P. promyarion is a nomen dubium in the sense of article 75.5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The first exhaustive description of P. promyarion is by Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980). These authors recognized the insufficiency of the type material, and therefore introduced the sample from Pech Desse as reference for P. promyarion. What they did in fact was change the concept of the species P. promyarion, coining the name to a different sample. Furthermore, they placed P. bavaricus Freudenberg, 1941 from Gaimersheim, poorly known at the time, in synonymy with P. promyarion. Since the paper by Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980) our knowledge of Plesiosminthus has increased, and several new species have been described. Particularly important is the redescription of an enlarged collection from Gaimersheim by Kristkoiz (1992). That author maintained the synonymy of P. bavaricus and P. promyarion, but here we will show that the samples from Gaimersheim and Pech Desse represent different species. That means that it is impossible to know whether the type material of P. promyarion belongs to P. bavaricus or to the species from Pech Desse. The best solution is to create a new name for the Pech Desse material and restrict P. promyarion to the type material. Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980) attributed a sample from Pech-du-Fraysse to the same species as the one from Pech Desse. However, it seems to represent a different species since four of the six figured M 2 from Pech-du-Fraysse have a posterior protolophule besides the anterior one. Furthermore, in Pech Desse the mesolophid of m 3 is nearly always long, never absent, whereas in PDF it is shorter and may be absent. Also, the antecingulum of M 1 is nearly always present in the latter locality. The width of M 1 and of the lower molars is significantly larger in PDF than in PDES. Insufficiently described samples have been reported from Ruisseau du Bey, Switzerland (Engesser, 1987), Cournon, and La Devèze, both in France (Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud, 1980). We provisionally refer to these samples and to the one from PDF as P. promyarion Auctorum, since it is impossible to know to what species they belong. Plesiosminthus promyarion has been reported from Vivel del Río (Hugueney et al., 1987). We transfer that sample to P. cf. margaritae n. sp. (see below).	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4EFF8EFE8CDECEFB3744A8.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Pech Desse, MP 28, Quercy, France. Holotype. M 2 sin., PDS 510, Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980, plate 4 g).	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4EFF8EFE8CDECEFB3744A8.taxon	description	Measurements. Appendix 1 (from Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud, 1980).	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4EFF8EFE8CDECEFB3744A8.taxon	etymology	Derivatio nominis. In honour of Dr. Monique Vianey-Liaud, co-author of the first monographic paper on Plesiosminthus after the study by Schaub (1930).	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4EFF8EFE8CDECEFB3744A8.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Based on data in Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980); In m 1 the anteroconid is isolated and the mesostylid is well developed; the ectolophid is rarely interrupted at the protoconid. In m 2 the protoconid hind arm (or posterior metalophulid) is complete in 30 %, absent in about 20 % of the specimens, and incomplete in the rest; in m 3 it is absent in about 30 % and complete or incomplete in the rest. M 1 and M 2 almost equal in length. In M 1 the mesostyle is well developed; in 33 % of the specimens, there is an anterostyle and a cingulum in front of the anteroloph. In M 2 the protolophule is anterior and a posterior connection is rarely present. Differential diagnosis. Plesiosminthus moniqueae n. sp. from Pech Desse differs from most other species (except for P. schaubi and P. admyarion) by the rarely present posterior protolophule in M 2 (morphology value MV = 0.195; see Table 3 and Figure 2). It differs from P. schaubi and P. admyarion by its smaller size.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4EFF8FFCCDD92EFF194070.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Gaimersheim, MP 28, Germany. Synonymy. Plesiosminthus promyarion in Kristkoiz (1992). Holotype. Not designated, but marked as holotype in the Munich collection: Mandibula dext. with m 1 – m 3, SNSB-BSPG 1939 XI 23, figured in Freudenberg (1941, figure 8 and plate 12, figure 17) and Kristkoiz (1992, plate 1, figure c) (information kindly provided by Dr. G. Roessner, Munich).	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4EFF8FFCCDD92EFF194070.taxon	description	Measurements. Appendix 1 (from Kristkoiz, 1992). Emended diagnosis. Extracting the most important features from Kristkoiz (1992) we propose the following diagnosis: in m 1 the anteroconid is isolated and the mesostylid is weakly developed; the protoconid hind arm is nearly always bent, rarely straight; the ectolophid is rarely interrupted at the protoconid; an ectostylid or cingulum is present in the sinusid in about half the cases. In m 2 the protoconid hind arm (or posterior metalophulid) is complete in 50 % of the specimens. In m 3 the protoconid hind arm is generally absent and the mesolophid is nearly always long, reaching the molar border. In M 1 an antecingulum is rarely present, the mesostyle is small. In M 2, besides the anterior one, the posterior protolophule is present in more than half the cases, either interrupted or rarely complete; the entoloph is never connected to the protocone. Plesiosminthus bavaricus differs from P. moniqueae n. sp. by: the less frequent ectostylid / cingulum in m 1 (44 % vs. 93 %); the better developed protoconid hind arm in m 2; the less frequent antecingulum in M 1; the poorly developed mesostyle in M 1, which is always well developed in Pech Desse; the more frequent posterior protolophule in M 2.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4FFF8DFC17DD96FC524032.taxon	description	Figure 3.1 - 12 zoobank. org / 9 B 1 B 48 B 8 - 7527 - 453 D- 9031 - F 0 D 850 E 9627 B	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4FFF8DFC17DD96FC524032.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Mirambueno 1, MP 27, Spain. Holotype. M 2 dext., MIR 1 193, Museo de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad de Zaragoza. Material. Collection Naturalis-Leiden: 21 m 1, RGM 558094 – 558114; 32 m 2, RGM 558115 – 558146; 41 m 3, RGM 558147 – 558187; 1 P 4, RGM 558307; 49 M 1, RGM 558188 – 558236; 36 M 2, RGM 558237 – 558272; 33 M 3, RGM 558273 – 558306. Collection Zaragoza: 2 m 1, MIR 1 164 – 165; 11 m 2, MIR 1 166 – 176; 4 m 3, MIR 1 177 – 180; 8 M 1, MIR 1 181 – 188; 7 M 2, MIR 1 189 – 195; 3 M 3, MIR 1 196 – 197, 228.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4FFF8DFC17DD96FC524032.taxon	description	Measurements. Appendix 1, Figure 4.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4FFF8DFC17DD96FC524032.taxon	etymology	Derivatio nominis. In honour of Dr. Marguerite Hugueney, co-author of the first monographic paper on Plesiosminthus after the study by Schaub (1930).	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4FFF8DFC17DD96FC524032.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Anteroconid of m 1 small, without an anterolophulid. Ectolophid oblique. Mesoconid and mesostylid generally absent; when present, poorly developed. Protoconid hind arm of m 2 transverse and low connected to the metaconid in half the cases, may be absent or short, or of medium length. Ectolophid oblique or, less frequently, longitudinal. Mesoconid and mesostylid like in m 1. Protoconid hind arm in m 3 the predominantly absent, mesolophid generally long, may reach the border of the molar. Anterocone, anterostyle, and mesostyle in M 1 generally absent. Protolophule in M 2 anterior, frequently accompanied by a - complete or incomplete posterior connection.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF4FFF8DFC17DD96FC524032.taxon	description	Description. Number of specimens in brackets. m 1 — anteroconid absent (3), small (11), or with cingulum (3); anterolophulid absent; metalophulid absent; protoconid hind arm transverse and low connected to the metaconid (4), transverse and high connected to the metaconid (9), bent and low connected to the metaconid (1), or bent and high connected to the metaconid (8); ectolophid longitudinal (1) or oblique (22); ectolophid complete (14), anteriorly interrupted (6), or isolated (2); mesoconid absent (16) or weak (4); mesosinusid open (19) or closed (3); mesolophid reaching the border of the molar (15) or ends in a mesostylid (6); ectomesolophid absent; hypolophulid anterior transverse (17) or transverse (5); hypoconid hind arm absent; posterolophid continuous (18) or interrupted (1); labial posterolophid absent (17) or small (2). m 2 — labial anterolophid present; metalophulid absent (1), anterior complete (38), or connected to the anteroconid (2); protoconid hind arm absent (6), short free (6), transverse and low connected to the metaconid (20), transverse and high connected to the metaconid (2), medium-length and free (5), bent and low connected to the metaconid (2), or bent and high connected to the metaconid (1); ectolophid longitudinal (13) or oblique (29); ectolophid complete (41) or anteriorly interrupted (1); mesoconid absent (32) or weak (8); mesosinusid open (37) or closed (4); mesolophid reaching the border of the molar (37) or ends in a mesostylid (5); ectomesolophid absent; hypolophulid anterior transverse (41) or transverse (1); hypoconid hind arm absent (39) or short (2); posterolophid continuous; labial posterolophid absent (29), small (7), or strong (2). m 3 — lingual anterolophid absent (2), short (2), or long (39); labial anterolophid long; metalophulid absent (5), connected to the anteroconid (8), to anterolophulid (23), to protoconid (4), or double (3); protoconid hind arm absent (28), short free (5), transverse and low connected to the metaconid (9), or long and ending free (1); sinusid open; sinusid narrow transverse (7), broad transverse (1), narrow backwards (32), or broad backwards (3); mesosinusid open (13) or closed (29); mesolophid absent (2), short (1), of medium length (5), long (22), reaching the border of the molar (11), or ends in a mesostylid (2); ectomesolophid absent; entoconid absent (13), small (24), or large (4); hypolophulid anterior oblique (7) or anterior transverse (35); hypoconid hind arm absent; posterosinusid open (4), half closed (17), or closed (21); shape short triangle (11), long triangle (7), or trapezoid (23); in four specimens there is a longitudinal connection metaconid-mesoconid. M 1 — anterocone absent (46) or present (4); anterostyle absent (43) or present (5); anterolophule continuous; antecingulum absent (44) or present (10); protolophule double (1) or posterior (53); sinus open (51), half closed (1), or there is an entostyle (1); sinus strong forward (3), forward (50), or transverse (1); mesosinus open; mesoloph reaching the border of the molar (52) or connected to a mesostyle (1); entomesoloph absent (52) or short (2); metalophule anterior (6) or transverse (48); posterosinus large and open (44), small and open (6), or small and closed (1). M 2 — lingual anteroloph absent (11), weak (17), or strong (11); protolophule anterior (10), anterior plus incomplete posterior connection (16), transverse (2), or double (15); sinus open (41) or there is an entostyle (2); sinus strong forward (6) or forward (37); mesosinus open (40) or closed (1); mesoloph reaching the border of the molar, no mesostyle. Entoloph-protocone connection high (6), low (23), or interrupted (13); metalophule anterior (27) or transverse (15); posterosinus large and open. M 3 — lingual anteroloph absent (25) or weak (9); protocone is a distinct cusp (17) or a mere crest (17); protolophule absent (2), to anterocone (9), to anterolophule (14), transverse to axioloph (8), or double (1); sinus absent (15), very small (8), small (5), or deep (7); neo-entoloph absent (2), interrupted (5), low (4), or high (24); mesosinus open (30) or closed (3); mesoloph reaching the border of the molar (26) or connected to a mesostyle (7); old entoloph absent (10), curved spur (1), or complete (24); axioloph absent (2), short posterior spur (1), long posterior spur (7), or = old entoloph (25); centroloph absent; centrocone absent (31), present (1), or on old entoloph (2); metacone absent (18) or present (16); posterosinus open (3) or closed (32). Plesiosminthus margaritae n. sp. differs from P. moniqueae n. sp. by: the better developed posterior protolophule in M 2, the general absence of anterocone and anterostyle in M 1 and of the mesostyle in M 1 and M 2; the frequent absence of a protoconid hind arm in m 3. Plesiosminthus margaritae n. sp. differs from P. bavaricus by: on average shorter molars; protoconid hind arm of m 1 bent in less than half the cases (41 % vs. 91 %); the rare presence of an ectostylid / cingulum in m 1; the on average shorter mesolophid in m 3; the more frequently complete posterior protolophule in M 2, the less frequently interrupted entoloph-protocone connection in M 2 (31 % vs. 100 %). N. B. The two smallest M 2 from MIR 1 (RGM 558261 0.91 mm x 0.84 mm; RGM 558264 0.87 mm x 0.85 mm) may belong to a different species. The distribution in Figure 4 appears to be discontinuous.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF42FF83FEBDD9A1FE544210.taxon	materials_examined	Material. Collection Naturalis-Leiden: 40 m 1, RGM 558308 – 558347; 31 m 2, RGM 558348 – 558378; 38 m 3, RGM 558379 – 558416; 7 P 4, RGM 558525 – 558531; 40 M 1, RGM 558417 – 558456; 47 M 2, RGM 558457 – 558503; 21 M 3, RGM 558504 – 558524. Collection Zaragoza: 10 m 1, VIV 514 – 523; 23 m 2, VIV 524 – 546; 3 m 3, VIV 547 – 549; 31 M 1, VIV 550 – 580; 29 M 2, VIV 581 – 609; 10 M 3, VIV 610 – 619.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF42FF83FEBDD9A1FE544210.taxon	description	Measurements. Appendix 1, Figure 5. Description. Number of specimens in brackets. m 1 — anteroconid absent (3), small (33), or with cingulum (7); anterolophulid absent (42) or present (2); metalophulid absent; protoconid hind arm absent (1), transverse and low connected to the metaconid (8), transverse and high connected to the metaconid (20), bent and low connected to the metaconid (6), or bent and high connected to the metaconid (9); ectolophid longitudinal (3) or oblique (46); ectolophid complete (32) or anteriorly interrupted (17); mesoconid absent (12), weak (25), or strong (11); mesosinusid open (44) or closed (5); mesolophid reaching the border of the molar (37) or ending in a mesostylid (13), ectomesolophid absent; hypolophulid anterior oblique (1), anterior transverse (41), or transverse (7), hypoconid hind arm absent (45) or short (1); posterolophid continuous (36) or low connected (4); labial posterolophid absent (27), small (7), or strong (14); in five specimens there is a longitudinal connection metaconid-mesoconid; seven specimens have hypoconulid. m 2 — labial anterolophid present; metalophulid anterior interrupted (2), anterior complete (40), or connected to the anteroconid (10); protoconid hind arm absent (27), short free (8), transverse and low connected to the metaconid (14), transverse and high connected to the metaconid (1), or bent and low connected to the metaconid (1); ectolophid longitudinal (20), oblique (29), or curved (3); ectolophid complete (51) or anteriorly interrupted (1); mesoconid absent (41), weak (8), or strong (1); mesosinusid open (46) or closed (6); mesolophid long (2), reaching the border of the molar (46), or ending in a mesostylid (4); ectomesolophid absent (51) or weak (1); hypolophulid anterior oblique (1) or anterior transverse (51); hypoconid hind arm absent; posterolophid continuous; labial posterolophid absent (42), small (5), or strong (4); in five specimens there is a longitudinal connection metaconid-mesoconid; one specimen has a hypoconulid. m 3 — lingual anterolophid absent (1), short (2), or long (37); labial anterolophid long; metalophulid absent (1), anterior interrupted (3), connected to the anteroconid (3) or to anterolophulid (32); protoconid hind arm absent (37) or transverse and low connected to the metaconid (2); sinusid open; sinusid narrow backwards (3) or broad backwards (36); mesosinusid open (4) or closed (34); mesolophid of medium length (12), long (21), or reaching the bor- der of the molar (6); ectomesolophid absent; entoconid absent (10), small (17), or large (8); hypolophulid anterior oblique (1), anterior transverse (33), or transverse (1); hypoconid hind arm absent; posterosinusid open (2), half closed (2), or closed (33); shape short triangle (10), long triangle (17), or trapezoid (12); in two specimens there is a longitudinal connection hypolophulid-mesoconid. M 1 — anterocone absent (59) or present (9); anterostyle absent; anterolophule continuous; antecingulum absent (40) or present (29); protolophule transverse (1), double (1), posterior interrupted (1), or posterior (68); sinus open (68), closed (1), or there is an entostyle (1); sinus forward (70) or transverse (1); mesosinus open (70) or closed (1); mesoloph of medium length (1), reaching the border of the molar (61), or connected to a mesostyle (9); entomesoloph absent (70) or short (1); metalophule anterior (31), transverse (39), or curved backward (1); posterosinus large and open (67) or large and closed (1). M 2 — lingual anteroloph absent (21), weak (41), or strong (9); protolophule anterior (27), anterior plus incomplete posterior connection (3), transverse (12), or double (27); sinus open (71) or there is an entostyle (2); sinus strong forward (9) or forward (64); mesosinus open (67) or closed (6); mesoloph reaching the border of the molar (71) or connected to a mesostyle (3); entoloph-protocone connection high (2), low (32), or interrupted (34); metalophule anterior (35) or transverse (36); posterosinus large and open (59) or large and closed (11). M 3 — lingual anteroloph absent (20), weak (3), or strong (2); protocone a distinct cusp (18) or a mere crest (8); protolophule to anterocone (11), to anterolophule (18), or transverse to axioloph (1); sinus absent (2), very small (2), small (15), or deep (10); neo-entoloph absent (3), interrupted (9), low (6), or high (8); mesosinus open (23) or closed (6); mesoloph reaching the border of the molar (26) or connected to a mesostyle (4); old entoloph absent (12), curved spur (1), long spur (1), or complete (16); axioloph absent (2), short posterior spur (2), long posterior spur (8), complete (1), or = old entoloph (17); centroloph absent; centrocone absent (29) or on old entoloph (1); metacone absent (17) or present (12); posterosinus open (8) or closed (21). N. B. Hugueney et al. (1987) mentioned P. promyarion from VIV 1, but did not describe it. We provisionally call it P. cf. margaritae n. sp. in order to avoid creating yet another species, but there are important differences with the type material: whereas the MV value of m 2 is higher in VIV 1 (0.610 vs. 0.270), the value for M 2 is lower (0.410 vs. 0.535) than in P. margaritae n. sp. from the type locality. Other differences are: The pcdha of m 3 is nearly always absent in VIV 1; the sinusid of m 3 is wider in VIV 1; the antecingulum of M 1 is more frequent in VIV 1; the neo-entoloph of M 3 is less developed in VIV 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF43FF83FF5AD866FCFC410B.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Herrlingen 8, MP 28, Germany. Holotype. Mandible with m 1 – m 3, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, SMNS 45661. Material and measurements. Appendix 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF43FF83FF5AD866FCFC410B.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Translated from Ziegler (1994); Plesiosminthus of medium size. Protoconid hind arm of m 2 predominantly connected to the metaconid.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF43FF80FF4CDB51FB5F421A.taxon	materials_examined	Material. Collection Naturalis-Leiden: 16 m 1, RGM 558532 – 558547; 14 m 2, RGM 558548 – 558561; 15 m 3, RGM 558562 – 558567, 558569 – 558577; 2 P 4, RGM 558632 – 558633; 27 M 1, RGM 558578 – 558604; 19 M 2, RGM 558605 – 558623; 8 M 3, RGM 558624 – 558631. Collection Zaragoza: 3 m 1, MIR 2 A 82 – 84; 5 m 2, MIR 2 A 85 – 89; 5 m 3, MIR 2 A 90 – 94; 6 M 1, MIR 2 A 95 – 100; 9 M 2, MIR 2 A 101 – 109; 8 M 3, MIR 2 A 111 – 118.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF43FF80FF4CDB51FB5F421A.taxon	description	Measurements. Appendix 1, Figure 6. Description. Number of specimens in brackets. m 1 — anteroconid absent (1), small (15), or with cingulum (2); anterolophulid absent (17) or present (1); metalophulid absent; protoconid hind arm transverse and high connected to the metaconid (18) or bent and high connected to the metaconid (1); ectolophid oblique; ectolophid complete (13), anteriorly interrupted (4), posteriorly interrupted (1), or isolated (1); mesoconid absent (9), weak (8), or strong (1); mesosinusid open (18) or closed (1); mesolophid reaches the border of the molar (11) or ends in a mesostylid (8); ectomesolophid absent; hypolophulid anterior oblique (1), anterior transverse (17), or transverse (1); hypoconid hind arm absent (15) or short (1); posterolophid continuous (14) or low connected (2); labial posterolophid absent (15) or small (2); in one specimen, there is a longitudinal connection metaconid-mesoconid. m 2 — labial anterolophid present; metalophulid anterior complete (14) or connected to the anteroconid (4); protoconid hind arm absent (3), transverse and low connected to the metaconid (14), or bent and low connected to the metaconid (1); ectolophid longitudinal (11) or oblique (7); ectolophid complete (17) or anteriorly interrupted (1); mesoconid absent (12), weak (4), or strong (2); mesosinusid open (13) or closed (4); mesolophid reaches the border of the molar (16) or ends in a mesostylid (1); ectomesolophid absent (17) or weak (1); hypolophulid anterior oblique (2) or anterior transverse (16); hypoconid hind arm absent; posterolophid continuous (14) or low connected (1); labial posterolophid absent (12) or small (4); In one specimen, there is a longitudinal connection metaconid-mesoconid. m 3 — lingual anterolophid long; labial anterolophid long; metalophulid absent (1), connected to the anteroconid (12), to anterolophulid (5), or to protoconid (2); protoconid hind arm absent (13), short and free (3), transverse and low connected to the metaconid (3), or long and ending free (1); sinusid open; sinusid narrow backwards (4) or broad backwards (16); mesosinusid open (3) or closed (16); mesolophid absent (1), of medium length (2), long (10), or reaching the border of the molar (6); ectomesolophid absent; entoconid absent (11), small (4), or large (2); hypolophulid anterior oblique (3) or anterior transverse (15); hypoconid hind arm absent; posterosinusid half closed (1) or closed (18); shape short triangle (5), long triangle (6), or trapezoid (8); in four specimens there is a longitudinal connection metaconid-mesoconid. M 1 — anterocone absent; anterostyle absent; anterolophule continuous (31) or interrupted (1); antecingulum absent (11) or present (20); protolophule posterior plus a trace of an anterior connection (1) or posterior (32); sinus open (30) or there is an entostyle (2); sinus forward; mesosinus open; mesoloph reaching the border of the molar; entomesoloph absent; metalophule anterior (15) or transverse (18); posterosinus large and open (28), large and closed (1), or small and open (1). M 2 — lingual anteroloph absent (10), weak (7), or strong (9); protolophule anterior (1), anterior plus incomplete posterior connection (2), transverse (4), or double (20); sinus open (27) or there is an entostyle (1); sinus strong forward (1) or forward (27); mesosinus open (15) or closed (10); mesoloph of medium length (1) or reaching the border of the molar (25), no mesostyle; entoloph-protocone connection high (3), low (17), or interrupted (5); metalophule anterior (13) or transverse (11); posterosinus large and open (17) or large closed (7). M 3 — lingual anteroloph absent (14) or weak (1); protocone a distinct cusp (8) or a mere crest (7); protolophule to anterolophule; sinus absent (3), very small (6), small (4), or deep (2); neo-entoloph absent (2), low (2), or high (10); mesosinus open (6) or closed (9); mesoloph reaches the border of the molar (14) or connected to a mesostyle (2); old entoloph absent (9), curved spur (1), or complete (6); axioloph absent (2), short posterior spur (1), long posterior spur (6), complete (1), or = old entoloph (6); centroloph absent; centrocone absent (15) or isolated (1); metacone absent (5) or present (9); posterosinus open (1) or closed (12). Plesiosminthus conjunctus from Herrlingen 8 is characterized by the primitive state of the pcdha of m 2 (82 % complete, never absent), combined with an advanced state of the protolophule of M 2 (75 % double). For an evaluation of " primitive " and " advanced " see the section on morphology values. These values are similar to those found in MIR 2 A (see Table 3). However, P. conjunctus from HERR 8 is clearly larger than P. aff. conjunctus from MIR 2 A (see Figures 7 - 12). Other differences are: The protoconid hind arm of m 3 is always absent in HERR 8, and present, complete, or incomplete, in 35 % of the specimens in MIR 2 A; the mesostylid is better developed in the m 1, 2 from HERR 8; the entoloph-protocone connection of M 2 is more frequently interrupted in HERR 8.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF40FF81FC01D860FCB0472D.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Coderet, MP 30, France. Holotype. Mandibula sin. with m 1 – m 3, nr. 96325, coll. Lyon. Material and measurements. Appendix 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF40FF81FC01D860FCB0472D.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Combined from Hugueney (1969) and Hugueney and Vianey-Liaud (1980). Anteroconid of m 1 clearly separated from protoconid, generally connected to the metaconid; protoconid hind arm straight or little curved; ectolophid incomplete; no protoconid hind arm in m 2; the m 3 has a maximum of four lingual crests; P 4 with big root and crown of little importance; M 3 and m 3 with simplified posterior lobe; crown of M 1 broad; protolophule posterior in M 1, anterior in M 2 and M 3; M 2 with simple anterior protolophule. FREUDENTHAL & MARTÍN-SUÁREZ: EUROPEAN PLESIOSMINTHUS	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF41FF81FEA4D922FAE343A1.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Thézels, MP 30, France. Holotype. m 2 dext., Th. 7582, coll. University Poitiers. Material and measurements. See Appendix 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF41FF81FEA4D922FAE343A1.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Translated from Comte (2000). Dimensions similar to those of the type material of P. schaubi, and sharing a number of morphological features with that species, but the relative proportions of the teeth and several other characters show affinities with P. myarion. According to its author, P. admyarion Comte, 2000 is significantly different from P. schaubi from Coderet in terms of size: its m 1, m 3, and M 3 are significantly longer, its M 1, M 2, and m 2 are significantly shorter. The t-test values reported by Comte are somewhat different from our results (see Table 4) because that author applied the formula for equal variances (Vianey-Liaud, personal commun., 2016), but we confirm the differences are significant at α = 0.05. However, the distributions of the measurements (Figures 7 - 12) largely overlap and size can hardly serve to distinguish these species. The MV values are very similar: very high values for m 2 and the lowest values of all species for M 2. Plesiosminthus admyarion and P. schaubi are probably closely related. Among the differences is the more reduced m 3 of P. schaubi (maximum four lingual crests). Another difference is found in the anteroconid of m 1: isolated (n = 39), connected to the metaconid (30), or to the protoconid (39); in Coderet it is rarely isolated, generally connected to the metaconid, never to the protoconid.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF41FF86FC24D837FA5447D5.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Venelles inf., MP 30, France. Holotype. m 1 dext., VEL. 420, coll. University Montpellier II. Material and measurements. Appendix 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF41FF86FC24D837FA5447D5.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Translated from Comte (2000). Differs from Plesiosminthus schaubi by the shorter mesolophid, not connected to the mesostylid in the lower molars. According to the description by Comte the mesolophid is separated from the mesostylid in 40 % of the m 1 (n = 20) and 77 % of the m 2 (n = 26). Plesiosminthus meridionalis, originally described as a subspecies of P. schaubi, and here treated as a species, is characterized by the very high MV values of both m 2 and M 2 (see Figure 2, Tables 3, 5). In this respect it is the most advanced species, very different from P. schaubi, and a close relationship is not probable. PALAEO- ELECTRONICA. ORG	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF46FF86FF77D9B7FEEC415B.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Sayatón 1, MP 29, Spain. Holotype. M 1 sin., SAY 1 108, Department of Paleontology, Universidad Complutense Madrid. Material and measurements. Appendix 1. Original diagnosis. Small Plesiosminthus species with a well-developed antero-lingual cingulum ridge in M 1, 2, with a continuous anteroloph in M 1 in which traces of an anteroconule are absent, and with a relatively short mesolophid in the lower molars.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF46FF86FEADDB21FB4242D6.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Chavroches, MN 2, France. Syntypes. Two maxillas and two mandibles figured by Schaub (1930, figures 5 - 9). Material and measurements. Appendix 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF46FF86FEADDB21FB4242D6.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Adapted from Schaub (1930). Lamella of the canalis nervi infraorbitalis reaching the anterior border of the foramen foramen infraorbitale; anterior end of the upper toothrow farther away from the jugal arch than in Plesiosminthus schaubi; P 4 smaller, with thinner root and clearly set-off crown; M 3 and m 3 with reduced but complete posterior lobe; M 1 narrow, with new (posterior) protolophule; M 2 almost as large as M 1, with double protolophule, M 3 small, with old (anterior) protolophule; anteroconid of m 1 connected to the protoconid; ectolophid well developed: protoconid hind arm frequent in m 2, rare in m 3.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF46FF84FCCBD8ACFE80413B.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. Brochene Fluh 53, MP 30, Switzerland. Holotype. m 2 sin., Br. F. 1, Naturhistorisches Museum Basel. Material and measurements. Appendix 1.	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
03A2BA4EDF46FF84FCCBD8ACFE80413B.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. From Engesser (1987). " Very large species of Plesiosminthus with very long and strong posterior arm of protoconid on m 2 and m 3, double protoloph on M 2 and M 3, and little reduced m 3 / M 3. m 1 always with secondary ridge between metalophid and mesolophid. Entoloph of M 2 situated far lingually, ectolophid of m 2 and m 3 far labially. Connection between protoconid and anterior cingulum of m 2 and m 3 sometimes interrupted. m 2 PALAEO- ELECTRONICA. ORG equally wide as m 1, but somewhat longer. Upper molars with 3 roots. Upper incisor with longitudinal groove. " It is generally assumed (Schaub, 1930; Ziegler and Werner, 1994; Engesser, 1987) that the evolutionary trend of the protoconid hind arm of Plesiosminthus is to lose contact with the metaconid, become shorter, and finally disappear. Apparently, this is not the case in P. winistoerferi, where the pcdha may even reach the molar border, a feature unknown in other species of the genus. It is doubtlessly the largest species known, but the length relation between m 2 and m 1 may be misleading due to the small number of specimens (see section " Size ").	en	Freudenthal, Matthijs, Martín-Suárez, Elvira (2017): A revision of European Plesiosminthus (Rodentia, Dipodidae), and new material from the upper Oligocene of Teruel (Spain). Palaeontologia Electronica 9 (1): 1-25, DOI: 10.26879/678, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/678
