Pseudocricetodon Thaler, 1969

Maridet, Olivier, Codrea, Vlad A., Fărcaș, Cristina, Solomon, Alexandru A., Venczel, Márton & Tissier, Jérémy, 2025, The record of cricetid rodents across the Eocene-Oligocene transition in Transylvania, Romania: implications for the “ Grande Coupure ” at European scale, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 70 (2), pp. 291-327 : 308-310

Genus Pseudocricetodon Thaler, 1969

Type species: Pseudocricetodon montalbanensis Thaler, 1969 , Montalbán , lower Oligocene, Spain .

Pseudocricetodon cf. Ps. montalbanensis Thaler, 1969 Fig. 11A–C.

Material. —One upper molar from Suceag and two lower molars from Cetățuie, Rupelian, lower Oligocene, Dâncu Formation, Gilău sedimentary area, Transylvanian Basin, Romania.

Measurements.—See Table 7. Description.—The cheek teeth are small, with a very low crown, and with thin and acute cusp(id)s providing a slightly more lophodont aspect compared to other cricetids described herein.

The mesial part of the M1 is lost so the mesial lobe is not observable ( Fig. 11A). The protocone spur is long but ends free in the anterosinus, and the anterolophule seems absent. There is no mesial protolophule whereas the distal one is well developed, oblique, and connects distally to the protocone on the entoloph. The large mesostyle closes the mesosinus whereas the sinus remains open lingually. The mesoloph is long and located rather distally in the mesosinus (noticeably closer to the metalophule than the protolophule), and a longitudinal spur connects the mesoloph to the metalophule. The metalophule is slightly oblique and connects mesially to the hypocone. A short mesiodistal crestule connects the mesolophe and the metalophule. The posterosinus is elongated and surrounded by a long posteroloph that closes it labially. The roots are not preserved.

The m1 ( Fig. 11B) has a small but well-developed anteroconid, surrounded by both equally developed anterolophids, and connected to the protoconid mesial slope by a long anterolophulid. There is no metalophulid but a strong protoconid hind arm connecting directly the protoconid to the metaconid. The metaconid ridge is long but does not reach the entoconid so the mesosinusid remains partly open; labially a small and low cingulid is present but so weakly developed that the sinusid appears open in lateral view. The mesolophid is short and, as in M1 for the mesoloph, distally located (closer to the hypolophulid than to the protoconid hind arm). The tooth is highly worn so the hypoconid hind arm is not clearly visible; however, a small bulge starting between the hypoconid and the posterolophid, and extending into the posterorsinusis suggests that it is present. Both small labial posterolophulid and labial posterosinusid are present. The m1 has two roots.

The m3 ( Fig. 11C) displays a well-developed lingual anterolophid whereas the labial one is shorter and lower; as a result the anterosinusid is closed lingually whereas the protosinusid remains open. Both the metalophulid (projecting distally) and the protoconid hind arm are long but none of them reaches the metaconid, which is consequently isolated from the protoconid. The metaconid ridge is long and follows the lingual border, reaching the entoconid spur, thus closing the mesosinusid. Labially, the sinusid remains open. The ectomesolophid is low and weakly developed, but much mesially located compared to the mesolophid, as in m1, the mesolophid is indeed closer to the hypolophulid than the protoconid hind arm. The posterosinusid is long and elongated, closed lingually, and surrounded by a long posterolophid bearing a bulge on the distal border. The tooth has two roots.

Remarks.— Several characters fit the emended diagnosis of Pseudocricetodon as provided by Freudenthal et al. (1994): the ectolophid laying labially and presence of the hypoconid hind arm in m1; the distal part of the m3 not much reduced with well-developed hypoconid and entoconid; the protoconid hind arm long and connected to the metaconid in lower molars; the long mesoloph in upper molars; and the lingual border of M1 forming an angle of c. 90° with the distal bor- der. Additionally, all teeth fit in the size range of Ps. montalbanensis Thaler, 1969 (see Freudenthal et al. 1994) but the morphology slightly differ in displaying a generally simpler occlusal pattern with a single short mesolophid and no ectomesolophid in m1, and an incomplete metalophulid in m3. The teeth are otherwise slightly smaller than Ps. moguntiacus (Bahlo, 1975) and larger than Ps. philippi Hugueney, 1971 , and Ps. heissigi Marković, Wessels, van de Weerd, & de Bruijn, 2020 (for size comparisons see: Hugueney 1971; Comte 1985; Freudenthal et al. 1994; Marković et al. 2020); for these reasons and because of the scarcity of the material they are referred to Ps. cf. Ps. montalbanensis .