taxonID	type	description	language	source
E07787AF5C3A070EA097FA89FCA6AD6D.taxon	description	(Figs 1 – 3) 1864 Crocidura gibberodon n. sp. – PETÉNYI, pp. 73 – 76, pl. I, fig. 7 a-c. 1911 Crocidura gibberodon (?) Petényi – KORMOS, pp. 158 – 159. 1934 Soriculus Kubinyii n. sp. – KORMOS, pp. 303 – 304, fig. 36. 1948 Neomys Castellarini n. sp. – PASA, pp. 11 – 14, fig. I: 12 – 15. 1959 Soriculus (Asoriculus n. sg.) gibberodon (Petényi) – KRETZOI, p. 238. 1962 Soriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – SULIMSKI, fig. 2 a-b. 1962 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – KRETZOI, pp. 306, 353, pl. II, fig. 1. 1967 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – REPENNING, p. 48. 1973 Episoriculus tornensis n. sp. – JÁNOSSY, pp. 50 – 52, pl. I, figs 1, 10 – 12. 1973 Episoriculus borsodensis n. sp. – JÁNOSSY, pp. 53 – 54, pl. I, figs 5 – 6, 9, 13. 1973 Soriculus kubinyii Kormos – JÁNOSSY, pl. I, figs 2, 8. 1973 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – JÁNOSSY, pl. I, figs 3 – 4, 7, 14. 1981 Episoriculus borsodensis Jánossy – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, pp. 236 – 238, tabs III – VI, figs 3 – 5. 1981 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, pp. 245 – 247, tabs VI – VII, fig. 6. 1982 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – VAN DE WEERD et al., pp. 93 – 95, pl. 1, figs 2 – 4. 1983 Episoriculus cf. gibberodon (Petényi) – FEJFAR & HORÁČEK, pp. 136 – 138, tab. 3, pl. VII, fig. 4 a-c. 1983 Episoriculus cf. castellarini (Pasa) – FEJFAR & HORÁČEK, pp. 136 – 138, tab. 3, pl. VII, figs 1 a- 3 b, 5 c- 6 b. 1984 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – REUMER, pp. 92 – 100, tabs 36 – 42, figs 12 – 15, pl. 27, figs 3 – 11, pls 28 – 30, pl. 31, figs 1 – 2. 1985 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – REUMER & DOUKAS, pp. 117 – 118, pl. 2, figs 3 – 4. 1996 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – DAHLMANN & STORCH, pp. 184 – 185, pl. 1, fig. 15. 1998 Episoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – MÉSZÁROS, pp. 108 – 109, tab. 5, pl. 3, figs 1 – 11. 2000 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, p. 31, tabs XXIX – XXX, figs 10 D-F, 11 C-F. 2001 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – KOUFOS et al., pp. 59 – 60, tabs 9 – 10, pl. 2, figs 7 – 12. 2003 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – POPOV, pp. 64 – 68, tab. VI, figs 9 – 10. 2003 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – FURIÓ, p. 152, fig. 5 a-b. 2003 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – VASILEIADOU et al., p. 553, fig. 4 e-f. 2004 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – POPOV, p. 408, fig. 2 C-D. 2006 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – ROFES & CUENCA-BESCÓS, pp. 306 – 310, tabs 3 – 4, fig. 5 A-H. 2010 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – FURIÓ & ANGELONE, pp. 234 – 235, tab. 1, fig. 3: 1 – 5. 2010 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – MINWER-BARAKAT et al., pp. 536 – 538, tabs 1 – 2, fig. 1 A-K. 2011 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – ANGELONE et al., p. 97, fig. 6: 5 – 7. 2012 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – MINWER-BARAKAT et al., fig. 4 AS. 2012 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – VASILEIADOU et al., pp. 213 – 214, fig. 2 a-e. 2013 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – CUENCA-BESCÓS et al., fig. 4 H. 2013 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, p. 22, tab. 25, fig. 5: 1 – 3. 2014 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – SIORI et al., pp. 408 – 409, tab. 4, fig. 3 D-E, G-H. 2016 b Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – PAZONYI et al., pp. 109 – 110, figs 8 – 9. 2017 Asoriculus gibberodon (Petényi) – JONIAK et al., p. 16, fig. 3 C-D. Studied material and measurements – For the overview of the measurements see Table 1. Specimen numbers and MNI data by layers are given in Table 3. Layer 8 – Left mandible fragment with M 2 (L: 1.33, W: 0.80) and M 3 (L: 1.00, W: 0.63). Layer 21 – Left I 1 fragment. Layer 25 – Right M 1 (LL: 1.43, BL: 1.40, AW: 1.75, PW: 1.68). Layer 27 – Left I 1 fragment. Layer 28 – Left M 2 (LL: 1.33, BL: 1.33, AW: 1.75, PW: 1.33). Layer 45 – Right mandible fragment with M 3 (L: 1.00, W: 0.53); – Left M 2 (L: 1.18, W: 0.65). Description – The tip of some teeth is pigmented with light orange colour. I 1 – The upper incisor is fissident. The dorsal margin and the buccal posterior margin make a sharp angle; the posterior margin has a slight undulation and a weak cingulum. M 1 and M 2 – Metaloph is present. The protocone and the hypocone are separated by a not too wide valley, which has a little cingulum at its lingual end. The metastyle of M 1 protrudes, but it protrudes less in M 2. Therefore, PW relatively to AW is more significantly less at M 2 than at M 1. The anterior margin bends obliquely beside the protocone. The hypocone is placed further towards the lingual side than the protocone (Figs 1 – 2). M 2 – The buccal edge of the hypoconid is slightly convex. The talonid is wider than the trigonid. Cingula are week, but well visible on both lingual and buccal sides. The lingual one is slightly undulate. The entoconid is high. The entoconid crest is present, but it is much lower. The buccal re-entrant valley opens directly above the cingulum (Fig. 3). M 3 – The buccal cingulum is week and slightly undulate, while the lingual one is less developed. The talonid is basined, and possessing both entoconid and hypoconid. The talonid is narrower than the trigonid (Fig. 3).	en	Botka, Dániel, Mészáros, Lukács (2017): Asoriculus and Neomys (Mammalia, Soricidae) remains from the late Early Pleistocene Somssich Hill 2 locality (Villány Hills, Southern Hungary). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 34: 105-125, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2017.34.105, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2017.34.105
E07787AF5C3F0700A099FC56FE02AD4E.taxon	description	(Figs 4 – 6) 1911 Neomys newtoni n. sp. – HINTON, p. 535, text-fig. 1 a, tab. II, pl. XXV, fig. 1. 1949 Neomys newtoni Hinton – FRIANT, fig. 15: 1. 1991 Neomys newtoni Hinton – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, pp. 405 – 407, tabs XXXIV – XXXV, text-fig. 19. 2000 Neomys cf. newtoni Hinton – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, p. 35, fig. 10 C. 2002 Neomys newtoni Hinton – ZAITSEV & BARYSHNIKOV, pp. 301 – 302, tab. II, fig. 10 C-D. 2006 Neomys newtoni Hinton – HARRISON et al., fig. 3 b. 2010 Neomys newtoni Hinton – MAUL & PARFITT, p. 96, tab. 4, fig. 2 H-I. 2013 Neomys newtoni Hinton – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA, p. 22, tab. 26, fig. 5: 4 – 5. 2016 Neomys newtoni Hinton – RZEBIK-KOWALSKA & REKOVETS, p. 21, tab. 9, fig. 9: 4 – 6. Studied material and measurements – For the overview of the measurements see Table 2. Specimen numbers and MNI data by layers are given in Table 3. Layer 4 – inv. n.: V. 82.85. – Right mandible fragment without dentition. Layer 5 – inv. n.: V. 82.54. – Left mandible fragment with M 1 (L: 1.75, W: 1.10) and M 2 (L: 1.60, W: 1.05); – Left I 1 (L: 2.15, H: 1.45); – Left M 1 (L: 1.73, W: 1.00). Layer 15 – inv. n.: V. 89.51. – Right I 1 fragment; – Left M 1 fragment. Layer 22 – Left I 1 (L: 1.78, H: 1.30); – 2 right I 1 fragments; – Right I 1 (L: 4.60, H: 0.80); – Right I 1 (L: 4.95, H: 1.03). Layer 24 – Left I 1 fragment; – Right I 1 (L: 2.00, H: 1.28); – Right P 4 (BL: 1.75, LL: 1.46, W: 1.80); – Left M 1 (LL: 1.75, BL: 1.66, AW: 1.70, PW: 1.85); – Right M 1 (LL: 1.70, BL: 1.66, AW: 1.75, PW: 1.93); – Left M 2 (LL: 1.60, BL: 1.68, AW: 1.84, PW: 1.89); – Left M 2 fragment; – Left I 1 (L: 4.73, H: 1.00). Layer 25 – Left M 1 fragment; – Right I 1 (L: 4.45, H: 0.83). Layer 27 – Left A 1; – Left M 1 (L: 1.58, W: 1.00); – Left M 2 (L: 1.43, W: 0.85); – Right M 2 (L: 1.29, W: 0.83). Layer 29 – Right mandible fragment without dentition; – Left M 1 (LL: 1.70, BL: 1.65, AW: 1.76, PW: 1.98); – Right M 2 (LL: 1.39, BL: 1.46, AW: 1.58, PW: 1.60). Layer 31 – Left I 1 (L: 1.88, H: 1.28). Layer 32 – Right M 2 (LL: 1.68, BL: 1.45, AW: 1.94, PW: 1.73). Layer 33 – Right I 1 (L: 4.60, H: 1.00); – Right I 1 fragment. Layer 36 – Right mandible fragment with M 1 (L: 1.60, W: 0.88), M 2 (L: 1.38, W: 0.80), and M 3 (L: 1.08, W: 0.68); – Right I 1 (L: 1.98, H: 1.38). Layer 39 – Left mandible fragment with M 1 fragment and M 2 (L: 1.50, W: 0.85); – Right M 1 fragment. Layer 40 – Left maxillary fragment with P 4 (BL: 1.88, LL: 1.33, W: 1.75), M 1 (LL: 1.68, BL: 1.68, AW: 1.71, PW: 1.93), and M 2 (LL: 1.48, BL: 1.43, AW: 1.84, PW: 1.69); – Right mandible fragment with M 1 (L: 1.78, W: 1.00), M 2 (L: 1.53, W: 0.90), and M 3 (L: 1.30, W: 0.75). Layer 41 – Right M 1 fragment. Layer 44 – Right I 1 fragment; – Left M 2 (L: 1.40, W: 0.83). Layer 45 – Right mandible fragment with A 1, M 1 (L: 1.64, W: 0.95), and M 2 (L: 1.46, W: 0.90). Description – Neomys remains differ from the ones of Asoriculus not only in their morphology, but also in their somewhat bigger size (Fig. 7). Pigmentation on the Neomys teeth is red to orange. Mandible – Structure of the condyloid process is typical for genus Neomys. The upper and lower condyloid facets are separated by a narrow interarticular area (Fig. 6). The morphology of the condyloid and coronoid processes agrees with the description given by RZEBIK-KOWALSKA (2013): “ The coronoid process is narrow and its tip is rounded. The coronoid spicule is distinct, situated in 2 / 3 of the height of the coronoid process. The upper facet of the condyloid process is small, the lower is wide on the buccal side and narrow on the lingual side. The interarticular area is very narrow in the middle and it widens towards the upper and lower facets. ” I 1 – The buccal cingulum is week and undulate. The lower margin of the talon is concave. The apex even as the talon are pointed. The upper margin of the apex is rounded (Fig. 4). P 4 – The parastyle is big with a low parastylar crest. The protocone is separated from the hypocone by a broad valley. The hypoconal flange is surrounded by a well-developed cingulum. M 1 and M 2 – The protocone is high, but its metaloph is low. It is separated from the hypocone by a broad valley. The hypocone is placed further towards the lingual side than the protocone. A wide cingulum runs along the flat hypoconal flange. AW <PW at M 1, but AW> PW at M 2 (Fig. 5). I 1 – The lower incisor is monocuspulate with up-turned apex. There is a weak cingulum on the posterior margin of its buccal side. M 1 and M 2 – The first two molars are very similar to each other in morphology. M 2 is slightly smaller than M 1. Low entoconid crests are present. The lingual cingulum is wider than the buccal one; the latter is slightly undulate (Fig. 6). M 3 – It is typically smaller than M 2, but it is not reduced in morphology. Its talonid is basined (Fig. 6).	en	Botka, Dániel, Mészáros, Lukács (2017): Asoriculus and Neomys (Mammalia, Soricidae) remains from the late Early Pleistocene Somssich Hill 2 locality (Villány Hills, Southern Hungary). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 34: 105-125, DOI: 10.17111/FragmPalHung.2017.34.105, URL: https://doi.org/10.17111/fragmpalhung.2017.34.105
