Meles cf. meles Linnaeus, 1758

Gasparik, Mihály & Pazonyi, Piroska, 2018, The macromammal remains and revised faunal list of the Somssich Hill 2 locality (late Early Pleistocene, Hungary) and the Epivillafranchian faunal change, Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 35, pp. 153-178 : 159-161

Meles cf. meles Linnaeus, 1758

( Figs 13–16 , Table 2)

Material – Layer 1: Phalanx I (V.81.21).

Layer 4: Proximal fragments of a left and a right ulna; right femur fragment ( Fig. 13 ); left tibia; left tibia distal fragment; right humerus fragment (diaphysis) (the whole tibia belonged to a smaller individual, the other 5 specimens very probably belonged to the same larger individual) (VER 2018.2610.).

Layer 5: MC II (V.82.105).

Layer 8: Left lower caninus fragment (V.83.18).

Layer 14: Left upper caninus fragment (V.89.4).

Layer 15: Left tibia distal fragment; phalanx III (V.89.47).

Layer 31: Left dP 4 (VER 2018.2692.).

Layer 32: Upper incisivus (VER 2018.2647.).

Layer 33: Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2656.); – Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2658.); – Left mandibula fragment with M 1; right mandibula fragment with C, P 3, M 1 ( Figs 14–15 ) (the specimens belonged to the same individual together with the VER 2018.2656. caninus) (VER 2018.2660.).

Layer 39: Left radius distal fragment (VER 2018.2665.).

Layer 41: Left lower caninus (VER 2018.2667.); – Left P 4 (VER 2018.2677.).

Between layer 43 and 50: Left humerus fragment (VER 2018.2681.) ( Fig. 16 ).

From mixed deposits: MT II (VER 2018.2688.).

Remarks – The badger remains from Somssich Hill 2 are a bit smaller than the extant Meles meles (very probably that is why JÁNOSSY (1999) described them as Meles cf. atavus ), but their morphology corresponds with that. Considering Table 2. in PETRUCCI et al. (2013) the measurements of Somssich Hill M 1 -s are similar to those of the Pirro Nord specimen ( Table 2). They are smaller than Meles hollitzeri but a bit larger than Meles atavus . They fall into the range of Meles thorali , but the length of the trigonid of the M 1 is clearly smaller than that of M. thorali . There is not any accessory cuspid between protoconid and paraconid which cuspid would be a diagnostic feature of Meles atavus so the Somssich Hill 2 badger remains can be ranked into the Meles meles species. According to many authors, some of the above mentioned species names could be used as subspecies of Meles meles because of the highly polimorphic feature of this species (e.g., WOLSAN 2001, PETRUCCI et al. 2013).

buccal view. – Figs 8–9 . Vulpes praecorsac Kormos left mandible fragment (VER 2018.2678.). – Fig. 8 . Buccal view. – Fig. 9 . Dorsal view. – Fig. 10 . Vulpes praecorsac Kormos left M 1 (VER 2018.2630.), occlusal view. – Fig. 11 . Vulpes praecorsac Kormos right maxilla fragment with M 1 (VER 2018.2682.), occlusal view. – Fig. 12 . Ursus sp. left deciduous lower caninus fragment (VER 2017.8221.), buccal view. – Fig. 13 . Meles cf. meles Linnaeus right femur fragment (VER 2018.2610.), anterior view. – Figs 14–15 . Meles cf. meles Linnaeus right mandibula fragment (VER 2018.2660.). – Fig. 14 . Dorsal view. – Fig. 15 . Buccal view. – Fig. 16 . Meles cf. meles Linnaeus left

humerus fragment (VER 2018.2681.), anterior view. All scale bars = 10 mm

Figures

Figs 2–16. Carnivora remains from Somssich Hill 2. – Figs 2–3. Canis mosbachensis Soergel right M 1 fragment (V.82.95). – Fig. 2. Lingual view. – Fig. 3. Occlusal view. – Fig. 4. Canis mosbachensis Soergel left upper caninus fragment (VER 2018.2659.), lingual view. – Fig. 5. Canis mosbachensis Soergel left M1 (VER 2018.2683.), occlusal view. – Fig. 6. Vulpes praecorsac Kormos right P (VER 3 2017.8222.), buccal view. – Fig. 7. Vulpes praecorsac Kormos left upper caninus (VER 2018.2666.),