The Iberian record of S. etruscus corresponds so far to Spanish localities, mostly summarized by Cerdeño (1993). The first occurrence of S. etruscus in Spain corresponds to Las Higueruelas (Ciudad Real Province, ca. 3.3 Ma; Mazo, 1995). The skull (MPCR LHG84, IV, C-1 No. 60: Mazo, 1995: fig. 1) collected from this locality displays morphological characters (e.g., squared shape of the occipital face, straight dorsal border of the nuchal crest in occipital view) that are evident on some skulls of S. etruscus from Senèze, France, housed at MNHN and NMB. In respect to the Italian specimens from Upper Valdarno housed at IGF, the skull from Las Higueruelas has the occipital face slightly inclined forward and the dorsal profile less straight. The dimensions of the skull from Las Higueruelas are consistent with an attribution to the Etruscan rhino. The mandible from Las Higueruelas (MPCR LHG84, IV, C-1, No. 23 and No. 44: Mazo, 1995: fig. 2) slightly resembles S. jeanvireti from Vialette (France; Guérin, 1972) and Milia (Greece; Guérin and Tsoukala, 2013) in having a rather irregularly convex ventral border, a long symphysis and four alveoli for the lower incisors. However, the anterior border of the vertical ramus is straight as in S. etruscus and the maximal width of symphysis is at the level of its anterior border, whereas in S. jeanvireti the maximal width of symphysis is at the back of the incisor alveoli (see also Guérin and Tsoukala, 2013: Fig. 7C, E); in contrast, the total length of the mandible and of the symphysis are consistent with the dimensions of S. jeanvireti. The presence of the lower incisors can be interpreted as a plesiomorphic feature retained by the earliest representatives of the species; lower incisors are completely absent on the mandibles of S. etruscus from younger localities.

Stephanorhinus etruscus was also reported at Piedrabuena (Ciudad Real Province), referred to an age earlier than 3.0 Ma (MN15-MN16 transition) (Mazo, 1999; Mazo and Torres, 1991) and to MN16 by Madurell-Malapeira et al. (2014 and references therein). A distal humerus (MNCN 41574) from this locality is quite small, the medial border of the distal trochlea is convex, similar to some specimens of S. etruscus from Upper Valdarno, and the medial tuberosity appears less evident in anterior view than in S. jeanvireti from Vialette (France; Guérin, 1972 and Guérin, 1980) and Monte Pastore (Italy; Pandolfi, 2013). The material collected at El Rincón-1 (Albacete Province) has been described by Alberdi et al. (1997) and the fossiliferous locality has been recently referred to MN16 (Madurell-Malapeira et al., 2014). The direct revision of the specimens at MNCN by one of us (LP) confirms their attribution to the Etruscan rhino. This species is also documented in the early Villafranchian of Villarroya (La Rioja Province, MN16: Cerdeño and Alberdi, 2016; Guérin, 1980; de Villalta Comella, 1952) and in the middle Villafranchian of Crespià (Girona Province, MN16-MNQ17 transition; García-Fernández et al., 2001) as published by one of us (EC). The presence of S. etruscus can be also confirmed at La Puebla de Valverde (Teruel Province, MNQ18 according to Nomade et al., 2014 and discussion therein), Huélago and Fonelas P-1 (Guadix-Baza Basin, Granada Province, MNQ18: Cerdeño, 1989, Cerdeño, 1992 and Cerdeño, 1993; Garrido, 2008), based on direct observations and figured material.

S. etruscus was reported during the early Galerian (early–middle Pleistocene transition) in Spain, where it seems to be a long-lived species (Cerdeño, 1993; van der Made, 2010). The presence of the Etruscan rhino can be confirmed at Huéscar (Granada Province; around 0.9 Ma: Cerdeño, 1993; van der Made, 2010) where, among other specimens, the distal epiphysis of a humerus (MNCN 19206) has a massive and protruding lateral epicondyle as in S. etruscus from Upper Valdarno, and the astragalus (MNCN 19214) displays morphological similarities with those collected from Upper Valdarno and Senèze, being different from those of S. hundsheimensis (e.g., medial lip of the throclea more oblique in the latter). Moreover, the Etruscan rhino was also reported at Atapuerca TD4, TD6 and TD8 (Burgos Province, Brunhes–Matuyama transition) by van der Made, 1998, van der Made, 1999 and van der Made, 2010. The astragalus from TD6 figured by van der Made (1999: fig. 3, 1a–f) resembles several astragali of S. etruscus collected from Upper Valdarno, Tiberino Basin and Senèze.

A small-sized S. etruscus has been recently recorded at El Chaparral (around 1 Ma, Villaluenga del Rosario, Cádiz Province: Pacheco et al., 2011). According to Pacheco et al. (2011), S. etruscus with small-sized postcranial elements occurred between 1.4 Ma and 0.78 Ma, first documented from Pietrafitta (Perugia, Italy) and last from Atapuerca TD8. An almost coeval occurrence to that from El Chaparral is at Cueva Victoria (Murcia Province, around 1 Ma: Cerdeño, 1993).

According to Guérin (1980) and Pandolfi (2013), Stephanorhinus etruscus occurred in Italy during the latest Pliocene (MN16a) in the site of Villafranca d’Asti (Asti Province) and during the Plio-Pleistocene transition (MN16b) at Montopoli (Pisa Province). Mazza (1988) considered both records to be too poorly documented and gave scant credit to them. The Etruscan rhino is represented only by one astragalus (IGF1452V, Fig. 2A) and a fragmentary metatarsal (IGF4688V) in the site of Montopoli (where also S. jeanvireti is present: see Pandolfi, 2013); although the species is represented only by two remains, they testified the presence of the Etruscan rhino in the early Villafranchian of Italy. The isolated remains from Villafranca d’Asti (housed at NMB), instead, come from an undefined stratigraphic level and an attribution to an age younger than the early Villafranchian cannot be excluded.

S. etruscus is also reported in latest Pliocene deposits of Castelnuovo di Barardenga Scalo (Siena Province) (Cuscani Politi, 1963 and Cuscani Politi, 1971), represented by several forelimb bones of the same individual housed at MSNAF (specimens 7124–7130 and 7138–7141; Fig. 2D–E). Among them, the Mc III (MSNAF 7138; Fig. 2E) displays a sub-triangular proximal epiphysis, with a straight anterior border, a rather convex medial border and a narrower lateral border compared with that of S. jeanvireti from Vialette. In lateral view, the anterior articular surface for the Mc IV is narrow and sub-rectangular whereas the posterior one, slightly covered by sediment, is sub-elliptical, morphology that coincides with several specimens of S. etruscus from Upper Valdarno (Florence Province) (Fig. 2B) and Tiberino Basin (Perugia and Terni Provinces).

Fortelius et al. (1993) also reported the presence of the Etruscan rhino in the late Pliocene (early Villafranchian) localities of Palaia (Pisa Province) and Città della Pieve (Perugia Province). Nevertheless, the fragmentary nasal bone IGF5566v (without nasal septum) and the mandible IGF13091 from Palaia display morphological and morphometric features closer to D. megarhinus and were referred to this species by Azzaroli (1962), Guérin (1980) and Pandolfi (2013). In turn, the attribution of the specimen from Città della Pieve cannot be confirmed, unfortunately, because it is part of a non-defined Private Collection (Fortelius et al., 1993, p. 67), it was not figured by Fortelius et al. (1993) and information about the stratigraphic level was not reported.

The last occurrence of S. etruscus in Italy was relatively controversial. Several small-sized remains from the latest early Pleistocene of Europe were usually ascribed to S. etruscus, S. cf. hundsheimensis or to S. hundsheimensis. According to Pandolfi and Petronio (2011), the latest Villafranchian Italian rhinoceroses from Pirro Nord (Foggia Province, southern Italy), Madonna della Strada (L’Aquila Province, central Italy) and Imola Basin (Imola Province, northern Italy) can be ascribed to S. etruscus. The remains from Pietrafitta (Perugia Province; latest early Pleistocene, Farneta Faunal Unit; Fig. 2C; Fig. 3A–B) were assigned to Stephanorhinus cf. S. hundsheimensis by Mazza et al. (1993), but their closer similarity with S. etruscus was later recognized by van der Made (2010), Pandolfi and Petronio (2011) and Pandolfi et al. (2015). The dorsal profile of a skull from Pietrafitta (MPLBP n585; Fig. 3A–B), which seems not to be deformed by fossilization, is very close to that of the lectotype of S. etruscus (Fig. 3C), while it is more concave in S. hundsheimensis (Fig. 3D). Besides, its dimensions are close to those of the specimen from Senèze and fall into the dimensional range of S. etruscus given by Guérin (1980). The mandibular rami from Pietrafitta display a slightly more convex ventral border and shorter height below the first molar than in S. hundsheimensis; moreover, the ascending ramus is less massive (Pandolfi et al., 2015). In the humeri from Pietrafitta, the medial border of the distal trochlea is more inclined than in S. hundsheimensis, while the proximal border is more regularly convex. In the Mc III, the lateral side of the proximal epiphysis is small and squared, being more massive and rounded in S. hundsheimensis. The astragali from Pietrafitta (Fig. 2C) differ from S. hundsheimensis; in the latter species, the medial face of the bone protrudes much more externally than the outline of the medial lip of the trochlea and the medial tuberosity is well marked and rounded. These Etruscan-like characters can be observed on the rhinoceros specimens collected from the lignite beds of Pietrafitta; nevertheless, a mounted skeleton housed at MPLBP and collected from a clayey level of Pietrafitta displays some differences with S. etruscus and further investigations are needed. Therefore, the species present during the latest Villafranchian in Italy is S. etruscus and the presence of S. hundsheimensis is not confidently supported.

In contrast, some of the rhinoceros remains collected from the Leffe Basin (Bergamo Province) and referred as Dicerorhinus etruscus by Vialli (1956) show morphological characters that allow their attribution to S. hundsheimensis (Pandolfi and Erten, 2017). An adult individual (individual B in Vialli, 1956) was collected from a lignite bed chronologically close to the beginning of the Jaramillo subchrone (level 5 in Vialli, 1956 = unit 7 of Ravazzi et al., 2009). The occurrence of S. hundsheimensis at Leffe represents the earliest record of this species in northern Italy (Pandolfi and Erten, 2017) whereas S. etruscus persisted in central Italy until the end of the early Pleistocene (e.g., Monte delle Piche, Rome: Pandolfi and Marra, 2015).

Stephanorhinus etruscus was recorded by Guérin, 1972, Guérin, 1980 and Guérin, 2007 and Heintz et al. (1974) at Perrier–Les Étouaires (Puy-de-Dôme, France; MN16b), recently dated at ca. 2.78 Ma by Nomade et al. (2014). This record was questioned by Mazza (1988: p. 62), who suggested a careful verification. The rhinoceros specimens collected from Perrier–Les Étouaires (Fig. 2F–G), and housed at NMB, are represented by a humerus (Prr429), two radii (Prr52, Prr109), a magnum (Prr56), a Mc III (Prr55), two femuri (Prr nn, Prr323), a tibia (Prr321) and three calcanei (Prr53, Prr54, Prr327). The radii (Fig. 2G) differ from S. jeanvireti from Vialette (comparison based on direct observations) which has, in proximal view, a more marked concavity on the anterior border and a proportionally narrower medial articular surface. The humerus resembles S. jeanvireti in having a well-developed and marked lateral tuberosity and a less concave dorsal border of the trochlea. The maximal length of the magnum (L = ca. 82 mm) is smaller than the minimal values reported for S. jeanvireti (L = 94 mm: see Guérin, 1980) and the medial articular surface is more anteriorly placed than in S. jeanvireti. The third metacarpus has the proximal anterior border sinuous and the proximal transverse diameter is wider than in S. etruscus. The femuri are rather similar, but the specimen Prr323 displays more developed lateral and medial distal tuberosities. The two specimens differ from S. jeanvireti in having a relatively wider and shorter medial articular condyle. The tibia differs from S. jeanvireti in having a narrower distal lateral facet and a wider and sub-quadrangular distal medial facet. The calcanei Prr327 and Prr53 (Fig. 2F) are slenderer than those of S. jeanvireti from Vialette, the tuber calcanei are less massive anteriorly and the anterior border of the cuboid facet is concave. The third calcaneum (Prr54) has a smaller tuber (TD = 39.2; APD = 53) than in S. jeanvireti (see Guérin, 1980: Tab. 108). This comparison supports the recognition of the Etruscan rhino at Les Étouaires.

The species is also recorded in numerous Villafranchian French localities (Guérin, 1980), which yielded a considerable number of remains. Among others, the specimens from Saint-Vallier (Drôme, middle Villafranchian) were revised by Guérin (2004) whereas those from Senèze were included in the Guérin's (1980) monumental work, but they have never been described or studied in detail, despite being one of the largest rhino samples of early Pleistocene age (2.2–2 Ma: Nomade et al., 2014). A few isolated teeth have been reported from Peyrolles (Haute-Loire; MNQ19, 1.47 Ma: Nomade et al., 2014) and figured by Dawkins (1868: pl. VIII). According to Guérin (1980), the specimens can be referred to S. etruscus, but the morphological characters of the teeth (e.g., presence of a strong lingual cingulum on the upper premolar, presence of a midfossette on the third upper molar) are common in both S. etruscus and S. hundsheimensis, and accordingly the specimens are here referred to Stephanorhinus sp. Several remains, including a juvenile skull, were referred to S. etruscus by Guérin (1980) from Blassac-La-Girondie (Haute-Loire, 2.2–2.3 Ma: Boivin et al., 2010; Nomade et al., 2014). Guérin (1980) referred to D. etruscus brachycephalus an isolated metapodial from La Sartanette (Garde; MNQ19: Bonnet and Malaval, 1976); later, Palombo and Valli (2004) listed S. etruscus within the faunal assemblage of this locality, even though most European material previously recognized as D. e. brachycephalus was reassessed as S. hundsheimensis (Fortelius et al., 1993). S. etruscus is certainly recorded at Bois-de-Riquet (Hérault; Bourguignon et al., 2015: fig. 6D; pictures kindly provided by Antoine P.-O., March 2015) dated around 1.3–1.1 Ma (Bourguignon et al., 2015), suggesting a persistence of this taxon in southern France during the latest early Pleistocene (Villafranchian–Galerian transition).

In the Netherlands, Hooijer (1981) reported the presence of a rhinoceros tooth belonging to D. etruscus or D. jeanvireti from the Pretiglian (early or middle Villafranchian) “black bones” fauna. Unfortunately, this tooth (Hooijer, 1981: pl. I) is much worn and its morphological characters are not useful for an accurate taxonomic attribution. Bernsen (1927) described several rhinoceros remains from Tegelen (Limburg; Early Pleistocene, late Villafranchian) and ascribed them to Rhinoceros etruscus and Rhinoceros mercki (= S. kirchbergensis), but Loose (1960) referred the maxilla ascribed to the latter (Bernsen, 1927: pl. III) to R. etruscus. Later, Guérin (1980) also reported the occurrence of two species at Tegelen: D. e. brachycephalus and D. mercki, but van Kolfschoten (1989) reported D. etruscus and, with doubts, D. mercki. More recently, van der Made (2010) stated that the remains from Tegelen resemble metrically S. hundsheimensis, but some specimens are morphologically different from it. The tooth series figured by Bernsen (1927: pl. I) shares with S. hundsheimensis from Mosbach (Karlsruhe), Voigsted (Kyffhäuserkreis) and Hundsheim (Buck an der Leitha) the following characters: presence of a continuous lingual cingulum on the premolars, presence of the crista on the premolars, presence of a complex crochet on the premolars, a constricted protoloph on P2, presence of a small crista on M1, presence of a slight lingual cingulum on M2, presence of a small and prominent paracone fold on M1–M2. These characters can be also observed in S. etruscus, but in different percentage and never occur on a single specimen. In agreement with Loose (1960), the tooth series figured by Bernsen (1927: pl. III) cannot be referred to S. kirchbergensis and are morphologically close to S. hundsheimensis or S. etruscus. The teeth are much worn and prevent a confident taxonomic attribution. The mandible figured by Bernsen (1927: pl. VI, fig. 4) resembles S. hundsheimensis; it is slenderer than in S. etruscus and the anterior border of the vertical ramus is inclined backwards whereas is rather vertical in S. etruscus. On the contrary, another specimen figured by Bernsen (1927: pl. V, fig. 4) is morphologically closer to S. etruscus than to S. hundsheimensis.

Among postcranial remains, the astragalus (Bernsen, 1927: pl. XII, fig. 13) displays morphological characters coincident with S. hundsheimensis from Hundsheim (the medial face of the bone extends medially and the medial tuberosity is well marked and rounded; comparison based on direct observations); instead, an unpublished astragalus from Tegelen (MfN MbMa 26297) is closer to S. etruscus. In summary, at least two species are present at Tegelen, S. etruscus and S. hundsheimensis. However, the occurrence of a third species, S. kirchbergensis, was reported by Guérin (1980: 978) on the basis of two tooth rows, some isolated teeth and some postcranial remains. This suggests that the Tegelen clay-pits are characterized by diachronic fossiliferous deposits referable to early and early middle Pleistocene, as raised by several authors (Guérin, 1980; van den Hoek Ostende, 2004; O’Regan and Turner, 2004; Schreuder, 1949). The material ascribed to S. etruscus probably comes from the early Pleistocene levels, but any chronological detail is not currently available.

In Germany, S. etruscus is reported from a few Villafranchian localities (Dietrich, 1953; Guérin, 1980; Lehmann, 1953). The specimens collected at Thiede (Salzgitter; Villafranchian) are represented by M2–M3 (MfN MbMa26305) and p2–p4 (MfN MbMa26304). M2 displays a slightly marked paracone fold, a concave posterior side of the ectoloph, a single crochet, a continuous metaloph and a slightly marked lingual cingulum. M3 has a rather flat ectometaloph with slightly marked paracone fold, a single crochet, a mesial cingulum and a lingual cingulum on the protocone. In occlusal view, the lower premolars (L _p2–p4 = 103.9 mm; L _p3–p4 = 72.2 mm) display a rough enamel, a rounded trigonid, and a slightly marked and deep vestibular groove. The p2 has a long paralophid and a slightly developed mesial cingulum; p4 has a mesial cingulum, lacks labial and lingual cingula, and the lingual valleys are V-shaped. These specimens differ from S. jeanvireti, in which cheek teeth display rather smooth enamel, a slightly convex ectometaloph on M3, a reduced or absent cingulum on M2 and rather shorter distance between the bottoms of the lingual valleys and the base of the crown on lower molars.

No other records of S. etruscus are currently reported in Germany, considering that the specimens collected from the latest early and early middle Pleistocene localities of Untermassfeld (Schmalkalden–Meiningen), Süssenborn (Weimar) and Voigtstedt (Mansfeld-Südharz) were recently referred to S. hundsheimensis (Kahlke, 1965, Kahlke, 1969 and Kahlke, 2001; Kahlke and Kaiser, 2011; Kahlke et al., 2011).

Remains generally related to S. etruscus were reported in a few Villafranchian localities of Greece, but they consist of isolated teeth or fragmentary material (Symeonidis et al., 2006: 444, and references therein).

De Vos et al. (2002: pl. IV, fig. C) described some badly preserved specimens from Vatera (Lesvos, Greece: ca. 2.5–2 Ma), determining them as S. cf. etruscus. The femur figured by De Vos et al. (2002: pl. IV, fig. C), as well as the other listed specimens (De Vos et al., 2002: p. 55), does not display useful morphological characters to distinguish among the different species, but the authors stated that they are morphometrically closer to S. etruscus than to S. jeanvireti or “Dihoplus” megarhinus. Symeonidis and De Vos (1976) ascribed a p2 and a m1 to Dicerohinus cf. etruscus from Tourkovounia 4 (Athens, MN16-MNQ17: Koufos, 2006). The dimensions of these teeth fall within the respective ranges of S. etruscus (Guérin, 1980: 468) with the exception of the width of m1, which is slightly smaller. Symeonidis et al. (2006: 443) described two fragmentary mandibles from Aivaliki (Serres, Greece: late early Pleistocene) and assigned them to S. cf. etruscus. According to Symeonidis et al. (2006), the morphology of these specimens is closer to that of S. etruscus and they were tentatively correlated to the small-sized etruscoid populations sensu Mazza et al. (1993), including Pirro Nord and Pietrafitta, whose remains have been recently referred to S. etruscus (van der Made, 2010; Pandolfi and Erten, 2017; Pandolfi and Petronio, 2011; Pandolfi et al., 2015). A few isolated teeth, mandibular fragments and postcranial remains doubtfully assigned to the Etruscan rhino have been also reported from an undefined locality near the Aliakmonas river (Greek Macedonia) and from several early Pleistocene Greek localities (e.g., Libakos, Kozani Regional Unit; Krimmi, Halkidiki Regional Unit; Sesklo, Magnesia Regional Unit; Molykrio, Etoloakarnania Regional Unit; Psychiko, Athens Regional Unit; Symeonidis et al., 2006 and references therein).

The species has never been reported in Serbia (Dimitrijević, personal communication, December 2016). Dicerorhinus etruscus has been reported in Montenegro, at Trlica (Pljevlja; late early Pleistocene?) by Dimitrijević (1990), but the material assigned to this taxon has been revised by Codrea and Dimitrijević (1997) and identified as S. cf. hundsheimensis. Recently, Vislobokova and Agadjanian (2015) suggested the presence of S. etruscus in the lower levels (level TRL10 and TRL11) of the Trlica sequence based on a few isolated teeth. Nevertheless, the specimens figured by these authors, in particular the M2 (Vislobokova and Agadjanian, 2015: fig. 5b) morphologically resemble S. hundsheimensis. The age of the fauna is still discussed (see van der Made and Dimitrijević, 2015).

Several postcranial remains of rhinoceros from an early Pleistocene karst cavity near Split (Split, Croatia) were ascribed to Dicerorhinus etruscus by Malez (1961). This species has also been listed in the Villafranchian faunal assemblages from Strmica (Šibenik-Knin, Croatia) and Pula (Istria, Croatia: Malez, 1986), as well as from Novo Mesto (Jugovzhodna Slovenija, Slovenia: Malez, 1986).

Within the Dacian Basin (Romania), S. etruscus has been recorded at Pralea 1 and Curtea de Argeş area (Cândeşti Formation, MN16a: Andreescu et al., 2013) whereas an isolated M3 assigned to S. ex gr. etruscus has been reported at Leu (Craiova, around 1.6 Ma: Andreescu et al., 2013; Popescu, 2004). Stephanorhinus cf. etruscus has been reported from the MN 16a of Mătăsari-Brădeţu and Cernăteşti in association with the mastodon Anancus arvernensis and in the latter site with S. jeanvireti (Rădulescu et al., 2003). The species was also reported from the MNQ17 at La Petriş (Rădulescu et al., 2003). In the Braşov Depression, S. cf. etruscus was cited at Iarăş (Late Pliocene: Rădulescu et al., 1965 and Rădulescu et al., 2003). The record of this species at Piteşti (Argeş; Stancu et al., 1969) could be wrong as it is based on a not diagnostic remain. S. etruscus occurred in several early Pleistocene localities of Romania; the latest records such as this from Betfia XII, Bihor Country (Codrea personal data, LP personal observation at HNHM) are close to the Jaramillo subchrone (Terzea, 2006; Venczel, 2000).

A well-preserved skull of rhinoceros referred as Dicerorhinus etruscus was collected from the gravels of Tiraspol (early middle Pleistocene, Moldova) together with several other remains (Beliajeva and David, 1975). The dorsal profile of the skull (Beliajeva and David, 1975: pl. I), as well as the presence of a well-developed lingual cingulum on the premolars, resembles S. hundsheimensis from Hundsheim rather than S. etruscus from Upper Valdarno; therefore, we recognize the rhinoceros from Tiraspol as S. hundsheimensis and discard its previous assignment to S. etruscus.

In the Czech Republic, Fejfar (1995) referred to Dicerorhinus etruscus a few teeth from the Middle Pleistocene site of Přezletice (Prague eastern district), but van der Made et al. (2017) recently suggested a probable attribution to S. hundsheimensis.

In the Slovak Republic, the Etruscan rhino has been reported at Strekov, Nová Vieska (Nové Zámky, early Villafranchian in age, MNQ 17: Holec, 1986 and Holec, 1996; Vlačiky et al., 2008), represented only by isolated teeth. Remains of rhinoceros labeled as Opsiceros etruscus come from Gombasek (Rožňava, latest early–early middle Pleistocene: Wagner and Gasparik, 2014). However, these specimens, housed at HNHM, morphologically resemble S. hundsheimensis according to Pandolfi and Erten (2017). In Hungary, Kretzoi (1954) reported S. etruscus at Kisláng (Fejér country, MNQ 17 or 18: see Janossy, 1986) and Villány loc. 3 (Baranya country, MNQ 17 or 18: see Jánossy, 1986; Kretzoi, 1956) on the basis of a few specimens not described or figured. The material has not been found in the visited Hungarian institutions and this taxonomic attribution cannot be confirmed, as well as that from Tarkő (Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén country; early middle Pleistocene; Jánossy, 1986). Stephanorhinus etruscus is represented by a small-sized radius (HNHM v.67.277) at Süttő freshwater limestone (Komárom–Esztergom country, MNQ 17). The species has been also reported at Osztramos 2 and 8 (Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén country, around 1.2 Ma; Jánossy, 1986; personal observation at HNHM and MFGI), whereas uncertain determinations of Etruscan rhino are reported at Somssich Hill 2 (Baranya country, aff. “Rhinoceros etruscus” around 0.9 Ma), Ürömhegy (Dicerorhinus cf. etruscus, latest early Pleistocene) and Budakalász (Pest country, D. aff. etruscus, latest early Pleistocene). “Rhinoceros” etruscus has been listed in the faunal assemblage of Vértesszőlős (Komárom–Esztergom county; early middle Pleistocene; Jánossy, 1986), but a few unpublished teeth housed at MFGI (v.17724-33, v.17738-47, v.17759-67) closely resemble S. hundsheimensis rather than S. etruscus.

Two fragmentary mandibles were referred to Rhinoceros etruscus from the alluvial deposit of the Dnestr River, near Kamianets–Podilskyi (Kamianets–Podilskyi district, western Ukraine; Leybman, 1960: fig. 1). These specimens are too badly preserved for an accurate determination.

In Caucasus, Dicerorhinus etruscus, Dicerorhinus cf. etruscus or Stephanorhinus etruscus has been reported from the early Pleistocene of Kotsakhuri Dedoplistsqaro district, Georgia and the famous site of Dmanisi (Dmanisi district, Georgia, Vekua and Lordkipanidze, 2008 and references therein), but the material was not figured or described. The specimens from Akhalkalaki (Tbilisi district, Georgia, early–middle Pleistocene transition) figured by Vekua (1986: pl. 6) morphologically resemble the Etruscan rhino. Stephanorhinus etruscus has also been listed within the mammal assemblage from Psekups (Adygea Republic, Russia), chronologically dated between the Reunion and Olduvai subchrones (Vislobokova, 2005 and references therein), but the systematic attribution of the material has not been verified.

The presence of a small form of Plio-Pleistocene rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sp., probably Stephanorhinus) in Turkey was firstly reported at Yokuri-Söğütönü (Eskisehir; MN 17a) by Becker-Platen and Sickenberg (1968) and Sickenberg et al. (1975). However, this material has never been published and seems to be missing (Mayda pers. comm., March 2017). Stephanorhinus cf. etruscus has been recently reported from the Denizli Basin (Denizli Province, southwestern Turkey, late Villafranchian: Boulbes et al., 2014). Unfortunately, the conservation status of the specimens figured by Boulbes et al. (2014) does not allow an adequate appreciation of their morphologies to get a more precise determination. New remains collected from this Basin have been instead assigned to S. hundsheimensis (Pandolfi and Erten, 2017).

The occurrence of the Etruscan rhino at Ubeidiya (Bethlehem governatorate, 1.6–1.2 Ma; Belmaker, 2009) is here confirmed through the observation of the remains reported by Guérin (1986: pl. 1). A second record in Israel corresponds to Bethlehem (Bethlehem governatorate, Hooijer, 1958; ca. 2.5 Ma: Bar-Yosef and Belmaker, 2010). Nevertheless, the crushed skull from this locality, housed at NHML, displays morphological characters that have not been observed in S. etruscus (e.g., absence of nasal septum, presence of medifossette in molars and premolars). The rhinoceros from Bethlehem needs a careful revision and a detailed comparison to establish a confident taxonomic determination.