The Long-eared Bats of Australasia

When most people think of Australian mammals, they imagine the fauna as dominated by marsupials and monotremes, representatives of lineages long isolated from those found elsewhere. But Australia is also home to a remarkable diversity of native placentals. Immigrating from the north as Australia drifted closer to Asia, the rodents and bats underwent their own radiations on the Australian continent and its neighbouring islands. Among these distinctly Australasian assemblages of placentals are the long-eared bats or big-eared bats of the tribe Nyctophilini.

Lesser long-eared bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi, copyright Michael Pennay.

The long-eared bats comprise fifteen or so species found over a range between eastern Indonesia and Australia with outlying species in New Caledonia and Fiji. They are members of the Vespertilionidae, the most diverse recognised family of bats, and share with most other vespertilionids a fairly generalised appearance with dull coloration. They differ from other vespertilionids in having a relatively short muzzle (with a correspondingly reduced number of teeth) with a small nose-leaf at its end (Miller 1907). They also (as the vernacular name indicates) have particularly large ears, as long as or longer than the rest of the head, that are commonly connected medially by a distinct membrane. At rest, the ears may be folded like a concertina along the hind margin to protect them from damage (Hall & Woodside 1989). Historically, the long-eared bats were treated as their own subfamily within the Vespertilionidae that also included a similar North American genus Antrozous. However, the nyctophilins are now regarded as a derived tribe within the larger subfamily Vespertilioninae (albeit one whose exact relationships remain uncertain) and similarities between Nyctophilini and Antrozous are thought to be convergent rather than reflecing a close relationship. The majority of nyctophilins are placed in a single genus Nyctophilus with the exception of the New Guinea big-eared bat Pharotis imogene. This species differs from Nyctophilus in lacking hair at the end of the muzzle.

Nyctophilins are found in a range of habitats but seem to prefer dry woodlands. Vespertilionids as a whole are differentiated from other bats by modifications of the fore arms including a highly developed double joint between scapula and humerus and reduction of the ulna. As a result, they may be less powerful fliers than other bats but they would be more agile. This trend would be particularly pronounced in nyctophilins which have relatively short wings compared to other vespertilionids (Hall & Woodside 1989). The development of a nose-leaf in nyctophilins is associated with their use of signals emitted at a constant frequency through the nose for echolocation whereas other vespertilionids use signals of varying frequency emitted through the mouth. As well as catching insect prey in flight, long-eared bats are able to recognise prey at rest and so glean insects off vegetation or on the ground. This gleaning habit is presumably also associated with long-eared bats having relatively larger eyes than other vespertilionids.

Gould's long-eared bat Nyctophilus gouldi with ears partially reclined, copyright Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria.

Caves in Australia are mostly not very extensive so the formation of colonies by Australian vespertilionids is constrained by the availability of suitable roosting sites such as hollows in trees or crevices in rocks. At least some long-eared bats may be solitary (Hall & Woodside 1989). Their distribution in Australia (as with pretty much all Australian animals) is also largely contingent on the availability of water. Mating happens in autumn but gestation is generally delayed, whether by delaying fertilisation or development of the embryo, and does not kick off until spring. Pregnancy then lasts about six weeks though it may again be slowed down if conditions turn bad. Long-eared bats are unusual among bats in that twins are not uncommon.

Whereas at least some nyctophilin species remain common (the lesser long-eared bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi is found over most of Australia), others are rare or little-known. A species described from Lord Howe Island, N. howensis, is believed to be extinct. The most remarkable case of obscurity is Pharotis imogene which was not recorded between 1890 and 2012, over 120 years. Evidence of extreme rarity? Quite probably, but also possibly evidence of just how few people are paying attention to bats.

REFERENCES

Hall, L. S., & D. P. Woodside. 1989. Vespertilionidae. In: D. W. Walton, & B. J. Richardson (eds) Fauna of Australia vol. 1B. Mammalia pp. 871–886. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.

Miller, G. S., Jr. 1907. The families and genera of bats. Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Bulletin 57: i–xvii, 1–282, pls 281–214.

The Grisons

Spend a bit of time following discussions of nature documentaries and other popular representations of biodiversity, and one topic you're likely to see come up is the biases that tend to exist in what gets represented. Images from eastern and southern Africa predominate while the west and north of that continent get overlooked. Europe and North America receive much more attention than the temperate regions of Asia. Another region whose diversity tends to go underrepresented is South America. The casual observer might think this continent is all monkeys and jaguars but South America is also home to notable radiations of dogs, deer, rodents, and other animals that many people would associate more with other parts of the world. Among these overlooked elements of the South American fauna are the local species of mustelid, including the grisons of the genus Galictis.

Greater grison Galictis vittata, copyright Tony Hisgett.

Grisons are somewhat ferret- or skunk-like animals found across almost the entirety of South America, and north into southern Mexico. They are greyish in colour dorsally (the name 'grison' itself means 'grey') with a black face and underparts. A pale stripe separates the upper and lower parts across the top of the face and continues diagonally back to the shoulders. They feed on small vertebrates and tend to be solitary hunters though they may sometimes form small family groups. They are primarily terrestrial and diurnal in habits. They have a reputation for ferocity; residents of Chile apparently have a history of using comparisons to grisons to describe unchecked rage (Yensen & Tarifa 2003b), in a similar manner to references to wolverines and honey badgers in other parts of the world. Contrasting colour patterns like those of the grisons are associated in other musteloids (such as skunks) with the production of offensive odours for defence, and grisons also produce strong-smelling secretions from their anal glands. Though some sources have claimed the odour produced by the lesser grison to be worse than a skunk's, it appears that these reports are exaggerated (Yensen & Tarifa 2003b).

Lesser grison Galictis cuja, copyright Ken Erickson.

Most authors have recognised two species of grison, the greater grison Galictis vittata and the lesser grison G. cuja*, as corroborated by a recent taxonomic study of the genus by Bornholdt et al. (2013). As their names indicate, the greater grison is generally larger and more robust than the lesser, being about 60 to 76 cm in total length versus 44 to 68 cm for the lesser grison (Yensen & Tarifa 2003b). The tail is also proportionately shorter in the greater grison (30% of the total length for the greater, 40% for the shorter). Fur is relatively longer and denser in the lesser grison, giving it more of a fluffy look. Whereas the dorsal fur is always a plain grey in the greater grison, it may often have a yellowish tinge in the lesser (not always, though). The two are generally distinct in range and habitat, as well. The greater grison is an animal of tropical forests and inhabits the northern part of the genus' range in Central America and northern and western South America. The lesser grison inhabits drier habitats, in arid or temperate regions, and so occupies the southern and eastern parts of the continent. The ranges of the species are known to overlap in Bolivian and Paraguay where their respective biomes approach each other.

*Some sources have listed a third species G. allamandi but this seems have been something of a 'ghost' taxon born from confusion whether the name 'G. vittata' applied to the greater or lesser species.

The genus Galictis arrived in South America as part of the Great American Biotic Interchange, about three million years ago. The general consensus is that it is derived from the genus Trigonictis of the North American Pliocene. Indeed, it has even been suggested that the two North American species of Trigonictis might represent independent ancestors of Galictis, with the larger T. macrodon giving rise to the greater grison and the smaller T. cookii birthing the lesser grison (Yensen & Tarifa 2003a). This certainly would seem overly complicated, though, and molecular data are more in line with a more recent separation of the species.

REFERENCES

Bornholdt, R., K. Helgen, K.-P. Koepfli, L. Oliveira, M. Lucherini & E. Eizirik. 2013. Taxonomic revision of the genus Galictis (Carnivora: Mustelidae): species delimitation, morphological diagnosis, and refined mapping of geographical distribution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 167: 449–472.

Yensen, E., & T. Tarifa. 2003a. Galictis vittata. Mammalian Species 727: 1–8.

Yensen, E., & T. Tarifa. 2003b. Galictis cuja. Mammalian Species 728: 1–8.

Predators of the European Eocene

Among mammals in today's modern fauna, the role of terrestrial carnivore is dominated by members of one particular lineage, known (appropriately enough) as the Carnivora. But travel back in time to the Eocene period, roughly 56 to 34 million years ago, and you'll find a range of now extinct groups sharing that role. This post is looking at one of those groups, the proviverrines.

The Proviverrinae are a subgroup of the Hyaenodontidae, one of the two families of carnivores commonly associated as the creodonts. I've discussed creodonts before, and the overhanging question of whether they form a coherent evolutionary group. Currently, my impression is that most mammal palaeontologists seem inclined to think that hyaenodontids and oxyaenids probably do not share an immediate common ancestry. However, nor is there any clear idea of what else either group may relate to.

Skull of Cynohyaenodon cayluxi, photographed by Ghedoghedo.

Historically, proviverrines have been treated as the basal grade from which other groups of hyaenodontids were derived with representatives known from Europe and North America. However, a phylogenetic analysis of early hyaenodontids by Solé (2013) lead to a division of the 'proviverrines' between three monophyletic subfamilies: the Proviverrinae proper, the Sinopinae and the Arfiinae. Under this system, the Proviverrinae are a uniquely European group. As is standard in mammalian palaeontology, proviverrines (in the strict sense) are distinguished from other hyaenodontids by features of the teeth. Notable among these is the presence of a double root on the first lower premolar of most proviverrines; other hyaenodontids have a single root on this tooth.

The earliest proviverrines are known from the very beginning of the Eocene (Solé et al. 2014). Current thinking is that their ancestors probably immigrated into Europe around this time from Africa. The Late Paleocene Tinerhodon disputatum from northern Africa resembles a proviverrine in overall appearance but was probably more basally placed in respect to hyaenodontids as a whole. The name 'Proviverra' can be read as 'early civet' and while proviverrines were not related to modern civets (which are, of course, true carnivorans) this is probably not a bad indication of the overall appearance of their original appearance. These were very small animals, probably less than 100 g in body weight, and probably had a fairly generalised diet of small vertebrates and invertebrates. At first, proviverrines seem to have been restricted to southern Europe, what is now Spain and the very southernmost part of France. Northern Europe was inhabited by the Arfiinae and Sinopinae, as well as species of Oxyaenidae (the other 'creodont' family). Sinopinae were also found in southern Europe and may have excluded the proviverrines from evolving larger size. However, the other hyaenodontids and oxyaenids went extinct in Europe not to long after the beginning of the Eocene. A turnover in the mammalian fauna of North America around this time appears to be due to a cooling of the climate; though the evidence for climate cooling is less clear in Europe, it seems reasonable that it was going through similar changes. With their competitors out of the picture, the proviverrines rapidly diversified into the regions and niches that had been left unoccupied.

Lesmesodon edingeri, photographed by Ghedoghedo.

The largest proviverrines, members of the genera Prodissopsalis, Paenoxyaenoides and Matthodon, would eventually reach weights of close to twenty kilograms, about as large as a medium-sized dog. They would also diversify in their habits. Members of the genera Oxyaenoides and Paenoxyaenoides were cursorial hypercarnivores, their dentition specialised for a diet almost exclusively of meat*, like that of a modern cat. Matthodon and Quercytherium, in contrast, were genera whose dentition showed more adaptations for cracking hard materials such as bone. They may have had lifestyles more like those of hyaenas, with Matthodon (which combined adaptations for hypercarnivory and bone-cracking) perhaps being more of an active hunter than Quercytherium.

*These two genera also provide an excellent example of the role of convergent evolution in the evolution of mammalian carnivores. Their appearance to other hypercarnivorous hyaenodontids was such that it was only recently that they were recognised as proviverrines rather than members of other subfamilies no longer thought to have been found in Europe. And not only are they remarkably convergent on other subfamilies, the phylogenetic analysis of proviverrines by Solé et al. (2014) suggests that they're not even directly related to each other within that clade.

Proviverrines remained the dominant mammalian carnivores in Europe for about the next twenty million years but then went into a sharp decline. This reversal of fortunes may have been due to the increasingly cool, dry conditions developing at this time, and/or it may have been related to competition from the first true carnivorans arriving in Europe. The larger, more specialised proviverrines disappeared rapidly when their time came. The last surviving genus, Allopterodon, was a small form, little more than one kilogram in weight, and had a generalised dentition indicating a relatively unspecialised diet. This may have been a return to something like the lineage's original form but it would not save it: by the end of the Eocene, the proviverrines would be completely extinct.

REFERENCES

Solé, F. 2013. New proviverrine genus from the Early Eocene of Europe and the first phylogeny of Late Palaeocene–Middle Eocene hyaenodontidans (Mammalia). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 11 (4): 375–398.

Solé, F., J. Falconnet & L. Yves. 2014. New proviverrines (Hyaenodontida) from the early Eocene of Europe; phylogeny and ecological evolution of the Proviverrinae. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 171: 878–917.

The Cervini: Deer of Temperate Eurasia (and Beyond)

A couple of years back, I presented you with a post giving a quick overview of the classification of deer. For this post, I'm going to look a bit closer at a particular subgroup of deer: the species of the tribe Cervini.

Wapiti Cervus canadensis, photographed by Mongo.

For most people outside the Americas, a member of the Cervini will probably represent the first image that comes to mind when picturing a deer. The same goes for many Americans, for that matter, though in that part of the world they face a bit more competition. Cervins are the most diverse group of deer in temperate Eurasia, with representatives also being found in northernmost Africa, North America, India and southeast Asia (as well as introduced species in Australasia). The Monarch of the Glen was a cervin: specifically, a red deer Cervus elaphus. Bambi, in his Disney film incarnation, was also a cervin, a wapiti C. canadensis (in his original literary form, probably less familiar to modern audiences with little interest in Austrian novels about all the miserable ways that animals can die, he was a roe deer Capreolus capreolus and so not a cervin) (Edit: Scratch that, he's a apparently a non-cervin white-tailed deer, see comment below). The group has long been recognised by features of the skull and leg bones, and also is well supported by molecular data (Heckeberg 2020). Males produce antlers with multiple branches (at least in typical individuals) with the branches or tines usually directed forwards from the main shaft of the antler (the Père David's deer Elaphurus davidianus differs from other cervins in having the tines directed rearwards). The first of these branches, the brow tine, usually originates close to the base of the antler. In a number of Asian species, such as the chital Axis axis and sambar Cervus unicolor, there is usually on one more branch on the antler so each antler ends with three points. Species with such antlers are generally found in dense forests and their simpler antlers may represent an adaptation to these habitats (Heckeberg 2020). Other cervin species may have more extensively branched antlers with a tendency for antler complexity to correlate with overall body size; the largest living cervins, the red deer and wapiti, also have the most branched antlers. Larger extinct species had even more extravagant headgear with the apex of insanity being perhaps the bush-antlered deer Eucladoceros dicranios of the lower Pleistocene of Europe: each antler of this species might carry a dozen points.

Skull of Eucladoceros dicranios, photographed by Aldo Cavini Benedetti.

To describe the classification of cervins as having recently been in a state of flux is something of an understatement. A conservative presentation of the group may refer to thirteen or fourteen living species in four genera (e.g. Macdonald 1984). More recent authors, however, might refer to up to ten genera and nearly forty species. In a way, this difference is not really as dramatic as it may seem: multiple subspecies have long been recognised for most cervin species and some authors have argued for the recognition of many of these 'subspecies' as distinct species. Classification at generic level has mostly been affected by recognition that the genus Cervus as previously recognised is not monophyletic. Most recent authors agree on the recognition of at least four genera of Cervini (Cervus, Dama, Axis and Rucervus) with two further genera (Rusa and Elaphurus) also commonly recognised.

Persian fallow deer Dama mesopotamica, copyright Rufus46.

The genus Dama is usually recognised as including two species, the fallow deer D. dama and Persian fallow deer D. mesopotamica. These species are readily distinguished from other cervins by the form of their antlers which are distally palmate. Palmate antlers are also characteristic of the extinct giant Irish elk Megaloceros giganteus and many recent authors have regarded the two as closely related. The white spots that many deer species possess when young are commonly retained by fallow deer into adulthood though the coat will often become darker and the spots disappear during winter. Melanistic and leucistic individuals of fallow deer are also common. Defining the native range of the fallow deer is a bit of a tricky question. This inhabitant of open woodlands is currently widespread in Europe but was probably restricted to a region of the eastern Mediterranean during the last ice age. Its current range in northern Europe may in large part be the result of human transportation. The fallow deer has also been widely introduced elsewhere: herds may now be found in numerous locations in Africa, Australasia, North and South America. The Persian fallow deer, in contrast, is now endangered, its range restricted to a small number of localities in Iran. Indeed, it was once thought to be extinct prior to the rediscovery of a population of about two dozen individuals in the mid-1950s; the current population is perhaps only a few hundred.

Thorold's deer Cervus albirostris, copyright Heather Paul.

The genus Cervus in its current, more restricted sense includes the red deer and wapiti as well as the sika C. nippon* of eastern Asia. Sika are generally smaller than the other two species and, like fallow deer, usually retain the juvenile spots into adulthood. Excluding occasional small accessory branches, the antlers of sika also possess no more than four tines (Heckeberg 2020) in contrast to the commonly further branched antlers of red deer and wapiti. Four-tined antlers are also characteristic of the Thorold's or white-lipped deer C. albirostris, an inhabitant of the Tibetan Plateau that has sometimes been treated recently as the only representative of a separate genus Przewalskium. White-lipped deers have broad, cow-like hooves for navigating the steep, rocky slopes of their homeland. More commonly accepted classification-wise is the separation of two species found in southern Asia, the rusa C. rusa and sambar C. unicolor, as the genus Rusa. Both these species have three-tined antlers and their fawns lack spots.

*Commonly referred to as the sika deer. 'Sika' (or, as it's more commonly transliterated these days, 'shika') is Japanese for deer, so the common vernacular name of Cervus nippon is, indeed, 'deer deer'. The same issue arises for the rusa deer in Malay.

Chitals Axis axis, copyright Charles J. Sharp.

Axis is a genus of four species of smaller forest-dwelling deer found in southern Asia. Antlers are generally three-tined with the upper beams curving inwards towards each other. The chital remains spotted at maturity whereas the other species loose their spots. These species include the hog deer A. porcinus, named for its low, short-legged build, and two closely related insular species. Recent years have seen some authors separate the hog deers as a separate genus Hyelaphus, restricting Axis to the chital, owing to molecular phylogenies casting doubt on the genus' monophyly. However, it seems that these studies may have been mislead by a contaminated sample for the hog deer (Gilbert et al. 2006) and other studies have retained a monophyletic Axis. The thamin Rucervus eldii and barasingha R. duvauceli are also found in southern Asia where they tend to be associated with marshy habitats. Their antlers curve outwards then inwards to form a bow-shaped curve; those of the thamin are three-tined whereas the barasingha possesses further tines, sometimes up to ten on each antler. Again, some studies have questioned the monophyly of Rucervus and suggested the thamin be moved to a separate genus Panolia.

Père David's deers Elaphurus davidianus, copyright Peter O'Connor.

Finally, there is Père David's deer, arguably the weirdest of all the cervins, most often placed in its own genus Elaphurus but sometimes included in Cervus. By the time this species became known to European naturalists, it was already extinct in the wild, surviving only as a herd kept in a hunting garden near Peking belonging to the emperor of China. This herd was exterminated during the Boxer Rebellion but specimens that had been transported to Europe saved the species from total extinction. It is now widely kept in captive herds and has also been returned to the wild in a couple of locations in China. Père David's deer has a number of features that make it stand out from other deer: as well as the aforementioned backwards antlers, it has wide, splayed hooves and a remarkably long tail. But in other regards, Père David's deer is not anywhere as weird as it should be. In particular, its karyotype is very similar to that of the red deer: close enough, in fact, that not only are the two species capable of hybridising in captivity but the resulting hybrids are fully fertile (such matings are unlikely in the wild owing to the two species normally having different breeding seasons). Heckeberg (2020) found that Père David's deer was associated with Cervus species in analyses of nuclear genes and cranial characters but with Rucervus species in analyses of mitochondrial genes and dentition; other authors had previously found similar results. It has been suggested that these schizoid tendencies with regard to phylogenetic analysis might indicate a hybrid origin for Père David's deer from ancestors related to the wapiti on one side and the thamin on the other. Such a hybridisation event would have happened some time ago—fossils related to Père David's deer seem to date back at least to the late Pliocene—allowing enough time to pass for the new population to develop its own idiosyncracies not acquired directly from either parent.

Variations on a Tayra

Subspecies can be a funny thing in the world of animal taxonomy. Millions of litres of ink have been spilt over the years arguing over how one defines a species but a lot less has been invested in discussing the nature of subspecies. For some popular species concepts (such as the most popular iteration of the 'phylogenetic species concept'), one might question whether any concept of subspecies could be applied at all (I could suggest some hypothetical situations but just how applicable or practical they are is a further matter). Essentially, most subspecies concepts distill down to 'a population that is distinct enough to warrant recognition but somehow doesn't quite qualify as a species'. Historically, the rank has tended not to receive a lot of usage among animals outside groups subject to particularly high levels of taxonomic attention—most particularly, vertebrates and butterflies—and many currently recognised animal subspecies were first named in days when taxon descriptions tended to be much briefer and taxonomists were under less pressure to explain their reasoning. Because subspecies tend to be, by their nature, vague and difficult to define, and because evaluating them often requires detailed population analysis within a species, these historical subspecies have a tendency to linger, unchallenged, in taxonomic listings. And with that as background, tayras.

Tayra Eira barbara photographed in Peru, copyright eMammal. Photography location would indicate this individual to be either E. b. madeirensis or E. b. peruana.

The tayra Eira barbara is a large mustelid (a member of the family including weasels, otters and badgers) found in warmer regions of Central and South America, its distribution extending down to about the level of the southern edge of Brazil. They are long-bodied but robust animals, kind of looking like a 'roided-up stoat. They grow to a head-body length of two feet or more (up to about 71 centimetres) with a tail about two-thirds as long again. Adult males tend to be a third as large again as females and more muscular around the fore quarters. Comparisons have often been made between tayras and the martens Martes of the Northern Hemisphere and molecular studies confirm a relationship between these two genera, as well as the wolverines Gulo. Closer fossil relatives are known from North America and it seems likely that the tayra originated on that continent then spread southwards. Ruiz-García et al. (2013) suggested that the degree of genetic divergence between tayras found in South America might indicate the species may have arrived there about eight million years ago, before the formation of the Panamanian land bridge. Tayras are not the only species for which this possibility has been suggested; these early arrivals may have reached South America by island-hopping between earlier-emerging segments of the eventual connection.

Tayras are diurnal omnivores, their known diet ranging from fruits to small animals to honey. In captivity, it seems they will accept pretty much anything offered to them. Tayras are the only animals other than humans that have been recorded caching unripe fruit in order to eat it after it finishes ripening. It is still not certain to what degree tayras are solitary or social; though commonly regarded as solitary, they have been recorded hunting howler monkeys in groups (Shostell & Ruiz-Garcia 2013). Tayras are mostly found in forests; in some areas they may adjust to more open habitats but seemingly only under sufferance (Presley 2000). Though not regarded as 'arboreal' per se, tayras are adept climbers. Their well developed carpal vibrissae ('whiskers' on the wrists) presumably contribute to this ability. Their wide distribution and adaptability mean that tayras are not currently regarded as of conservation concern though habitat degradation has reduced their numbers in some areas.

Tayra from Belize, presumably the light-headed Eira barbara senex, from Wikimedia Commons.

The body and tail of tayras are generally dark brown or black with the head being distinctly lighter in coloration (light brown or grey to yellow). Leucistic and albino individuals are not that uncommon (yellow tayras are apparently particularly common in Guyana). A patch of pale coloration, varying from a spot to a broad triangle, is often (but not always) present on the chest and throat. Recent taxonomic listings (e.g. Presley 2000) have recognised seven subspecies of tayra distinguished by coloration. The Mexican Eira barbara senex has a greyish white head with the light coloration extending to dark yellow shoulders and a dark brown body. Eira barbara inserta, found in southern Honduras and Nicaragua, is a dark subspecies with a dark brown head, black body and no throat patch. The Colombian E. b. sinuensis is darker than E. b. senex with the nape a darker brown than the head; it may or may not possess a throat patch. Eira barbara barbara, found in southern Brazil, eastern Bolivia and Paraguay, is lighter than E. b. sinuensis but darker than E. b. senex and has a yellowish throat patch. The northern Brazilian E. b. madeirensis is a chocolate brown with the head slightly lighter than the body; again, a throat patch may or may not be present. The Peruvian and western Bolivian E. b. peruana is similar to the last subspecies but has darker legs and a black tail. Finally, E. b. poliocephala, which has a distribution centred on the Guianas, is similar to E. b. barbara but with a darker yellow throat patch and yellow shoulder patches that sometimes merge with the throat patch to form a complete collar.

Tayra photographed in a zoo in Panama, copyright Dirk van der Made. Being a zoo individual, its origins are a bit more open than the other individuals shown on this page, but Panama is home to Eira barbara inserta and E. b. sinuensis.

Such is the received wisdom as recorded by Presley (2000) but does it accurately reflect population distributions? Ruiz-García et al. (2013) conducted an analysis of mitochondrial genes from tayras representing the five South American subspecies (i.e. excluding E. b. senex and E. b. inserta). They found that of these five subspecies, only E. b. poliocephala (as represented by specimens from French Guiana) could potentially be differentiated genetically. Samples from the ranges of the other four 'subspecies' were intermingled in analyses, leading Ruiz-García et al. to suggest that they should be merged into a single subspecies E. b. barbara (it may also be worth me mentioning that, when I was looking for images to illustrate this post, I had difficulty finding ones in which the supposed differences between subspecies were recognisable). Of course, that leaves the status of the two Central American subspecies undetermined. It may be of note that they seem to be more distinct in appearance than some of the hitherto-recognised South American subspecies but it remains to be seen just how significant this is.

REFERENCES

Presley, S. J. 2000. Eira barbara. Mammalian Species 636: 1–6.

Ruiz-García, M., N. Lichilín-Ortiz & M. F. Jaramillo. 2013. Molecular phylogenetics of two Neotropical carnivores, Potos flavus (Procyonidae) and Eira barbata (Mustelidae): no clear existence of putative morphological subspecies. In: Ruiz-Garcia, M., & J. M. Shostell (eds) Molecular Population Genetics, Evolutionary Biology and Biological Conservation of Neotropical Carnivores pp. 37–84. Nova Publishers: New York.

Shostell, J. M., & M. Ruiz-Garcia. 2013. An introduction to Neotropical carnivores. In: Ruiz-Garcia, M., & J. M. Shostell (eds) Molecular Population Genetics, Evolutionary Biology and Biological Conservation of Neotropical Carnivores pp. 1–34. Nova Publishers: New York.

Moustached Bats, Ghost-faced Bats

In the theatre of mammal diversity, there are two groups that loom above all their competitors. The most diverse of the generally recognised mammalian orders, by a healthy margin, is the rodents. Nevertheless, they are still given a good run for their money by the silver medalist, the bats. There is somewhere in the region of 1100 known living species of bat, a number that has continued to increase in recent years as study progresses. This post will focus on one particular group of bats, the Mormoopidae.

Ghost-faced bat Mormoops megalophylla, copyright Merlin Tuttle.

Mormoopids are a group of bats found in warmer parts of the Americas. They commonly go by the names of moustached bats or funnel-eared bats, at least to the extent that any type of bat can be said to 'commonly' go by anything. They are fast-flying, insectivorous bats that roost in colonies in hot, humid caves. These colonies can be sizable: at least one colony of Wagner's moustached bat Pteronotus personatus was estimated to include more than 16,000 individuals (de la Torre & Medellín 2010). In the United States, mormoopids are currently restricted to the south-west (in the form of the ghost-faced bat Mormoops megalophylla) but subfossil from Florida indicate a wider distribution in the past (Simmons & Conway 2001).

Mormoopids belong to the Noctilionoidea, a distinctly Neotropical group of bats that also includes the leaf-nosed bats of the Phyllostomidae and the Noctilio bulldog bats (and also possibly the short-tailed bat Mystacina of New Zealand, because why make things simple?) The biggest difference between mormoopids and other noctilionoids lies in the structure of their shoulders. In most bats, the trochiter (one of the tubercles at the top of the humerus) is enlarged to form a secondary articulation with the scapula. This strengthens the shoulder joint, presumably allowing the production of more power for flight. Mormoopids, however, lack this enlarged trochiter. I must confess to being unsure just what is the significance of this alteration; mormoopids remain fast fliers (de la Torre & Medellín 2010). Are they perhaps sacrificing a bit of endurance for the sake of higher mobility?

Wagner's moustached bat Pteronotus personatus, copyright Bernard Dupont.

Current classifications of the mormoopids recognise two genera in the family, Mormoops and Pteronotus. Mormoops species have a shorter head than Pteronotus species (so short, in fact, that the braincase is wider than it is long), with a markedly upturned snout. Basically, they have a skull like a pug dog. In a revision of the family, Simmons & Conway (2001) recognised two living species of Mormoops and six of Pteronotus, plus an additional species of each described from subfossil remains from Cuba. Pteronotus was also divided between three subgenera. The type subgenus included two species, Pt. davyi and Pt. gymnonotus, known as naked-backed bats because the membrane for their wings attaches close to the spine so the body fur is not visible in dorsal view (in other mormoopids, the wings attach along the sides of the body). Three of the remaining species (Pt. personatus, the sooty moustached bat Pt. quadridens and Macleay's moustached bat Pt. macleayi) were placed in a morphologically generalised subgenus Chilonycteris. The remaining living species was Parnell's moustached bat Pt. parnellii, placed in its own subgenus Phyllodia.

Pteronotus parnellii was the only known mormoopid, and in fact the only Neotropical bat of any kind, to use high duty cycle echolocation. Echolocation, of course, works through the bat emitting calls and listening for when they bounce back from surrounding objects. The problem is that the noise produced while emitting calls can drown out returning echoes. As a result, most echolocating bats use what is called low duty cycle echolocation. Individual echolocation calls are spaced apart so the bat has time between each call to listen for echoes. High duty cycle echolocation is used by two Old World bat families, the Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, as well as Pteronotus parnellii. These bats have learnt the trick of emitting calls continuously and recognising returning echoes by their different frequency. This allows each bat to build up a more detailed picture of its surrounds, allowing for greater mobility in complex environments such as around dense forest.

Parnell's moustached bat Pteronotus parnellii, copyright Alex Borisenko.

In recent years, however, mormoopid systematics have been given a shake-up. Many of the mormoopid species recognised by Simmons & Conway (2001) could be divided between multiple subspecies. Recently, a molecular analysis of Pteronotus species by Pavan & Marroig (2016) found strong genetic divergence between most of these subspecies. As a result, they proposed raising the distinct subspecies to species level, effectively raising the number of living Pteronotus species from six to fifteen. Some of these species could also be separated on the basis of morphometric and acoustic data; others exhibited morphometric overlap but were geographically distinct. 'Pteronotus parnellii' was the most diverse, being divided into eight named species plus an unnamed population that may warrant species recognition. The question that this immediately raises: is the use of high duty cycle echolocation a feature of all nine of these species, or might it turn out that not all members of the P. parnellii group are high duty echolocators?

REFERENCES

de la Torre, J. A., & R. A. Medellín. 2010. Pteronotus personatus (Chiroptera: Mormoopidae). Mammalian Species 42 (869): 244–250.

Pavan, A. C., & G. Marroig. 2016. Integrating multiple evidences in taxonomy: species diversity and phylogeny of mustached bats (Mormoopidae: Pteronotus). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 103: 184–198. Simmons, N. B., & T. M. Conway. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of mormoopid bats (Chiroptera: Mormoopidae) based on morphological data. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 258: 1–97.

Walruses, Sea Lions and Fur Seals

Adaptation to a primarily aquatic lifestyle has happened numerous times within mammals, but some groups have radiated more in this environment than others. One particularly well-known group of marine mammals is the pinnipeds, the seals and sea lions.

Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea on a beach on Kangaroo Island, copyright Diver Dave.

Pinnipeds are highly modified for life in the water, with streamlined bodies and all four limbs modified into flippers. When I was young, many of the animal books that I read referred to pinnipeds as their own distinct order within the mammals. However, it has long been recognised that pinnipeds are derived from within the Carnivora and these days they are almost universally treated as a subgroup of the latter. Modern pinnipeds are divided between three families: the Phocidae ('true' seals), Otariidae (fur seals and sea lions) and Odobenidae (which has only one living species, the walrus Odobenus rosmarus). While some morphological analyses have argued for a relationship between the walrus and the Phocidae, the majority view treats the walrus and the Otariidae as together forming a clade Otarioidea, commonly referred to as the eared seals. There has historically also been some argument about whether the pinnipeds represent a single clade; some have argued for two separate origins, Otarioidea being related to bears whereas Phocidae were supposed to be closer to otters and weasels. However, the current majority supports a single origin for the group.

Northern fur seals Callorhinus ursinus, photographed by M. Boylan.

Eared seals differ from true seals in the possession of small external ears, and the ability to turn the hind flippers back under the body so that they can still function (if somewhat awkwardly) as feet when moving on land. I have seen Australian sea lions on coastal islands near Perth (there are boat tours that will take you to see them) and I can confirm that they can run along the beach at a surprising speed when they wish to. True seals have the hind flippers permanently directed behind them and so are forced to awkwardly belly-flop along when not swimming (doubtless as a result of this, true seals also differ from eared seals in that males lack an external scrotum). In the water, the hind flippers provide the main source of propulsion in true seals whereas eared seals get more of their thrust from the fore flippers (sea lions have been said to swim like penguins). As an aside, eared seals are also apparently unusual among mammals in that their milk completely lacks lactose. The lactose intolerant among you need not be denied dairy, you need only milk a walrus.

Mounted skeleton of Allodesmus sp., copyright Momotarou2012.

The earliest eared seals are known from the Miocene when they appear to have originated in the northern Pacific. Two extinct families from this place and period, the Enaliarctidae and Desmatophocidae, are commonly included in the Otarioidea, though it remains possible that either of these families should be placed outside the pinniped crown group, or closer to the true seals. The early Miocene Enaliarctidae differ from other otarioids in retaining differentiated premolars and molars (later forms have the cheek teeth uniform in appearance) and may well represent the ancestral form of the group. The mid- to late Miocene Desmatophocidae combined a rather Phocidae-like skull with a more Otarioidea-like post-cranium; the best-known genus Allodesmus had larger eyes than other otarioids and may have hunted in deep waters. One species of desmatophocid, Allodesmus sinanoensis, may have reached a length approaching five metres, making it larger than a modern walrus and rivalling the elephant seals in size. I highly recommend a series of posts on Allodesmus written a few years back by Robert Boessenecker (1, 2, 3, 4) that cover just about everything you might want to know about this animal.

Skull of Gomphotaria pugnax, from Robert Boessenecker.

Though only one walrus species is generally recognised in the modern fauna, the family was much more diverse in the past. However, most fossil Odobenidae lacked the tusks of a modern walrus and would have been more similar at a glance to sea lions. These early odobenids would have probably been generalist fish-feeders (Boessenecker & Churchill 2013). The modern walrus, in contrast, feeds primarily on bivalves. They don't crush the clam's shell but grab it with their lips and then suck powerfully enough that the meat is ripped out. Other than the tusks, the teeth of a modern walrus are small and weak; one close fossil relative, the Pliocene Valenictus chulavistensis, went so far as to lose the non-tusk teeth entirely. The tusks themselves are usually thought to function in display and the like rather than having any prominent role in feeding. However, it is an intriguing detail that the fossil whale Odobenocetops that converged in its feeding biology with walruses also possessed a large tusk. The non-tusk teeth were still used in feeding in the fossil clam-feeding walrus genera Dusignathus and Gomphotaria, which had a pair of large forward-directed tusks in both the upper and lower jaws.

Suckling South African fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus, copyright Robur.q.

The majority of living eared seals belong to the Otariidae, which have been divided in the past between the fur seals and sea lions. Fur seals tend to be smaller than sea lions and possess a dense layer of underfur. However, more recent phylogenetic studies (particularly molecular ones) have thrown this distinction out the window (e.g. Higdon et al. 2007). Instead, the northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus of the north Pacific is probably the sister species to all other living otariids. Even the southern fur seals, generally placed in a single genus Arctocephalus, may not be monophyletic relative to the New Zealand sea lion Phocarctos hookeri (as a result, some authors have suggested resurrecting the genus Arctophoca for all southern fur seals other than the South African fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus). The South American fur seal Otaria flavescens may also be associated with this latter group. The two north Pacific sea lions, Steller's sea lion Eumetopias jubatus and the Californian sea lion Zalophus californianus, form a clade outside the southern otariids. The remaining species is the Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea whose position has been harder to pin down: some analyses place it close to the New Zealand sea lion but others position it well away from all other southern otariids, possibly even outside all other otariids except the northern fur seal.

Walruses Odobenus rosmarus crowded on shore, from here.

Fur seals and sea lions were heavily hunted in the past for pelts and oil and some species remain endangered. Climate change poses a particular threat to cold-water species; for instance, recent years have seen significant contractions in walrus ranges, leading to dramatic crowding in the locations remaining. Conversely, the Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella, once feared extinct, has apparently exhibited a population explosion in recent decades, perhaps because lowered whale populations have led to more food being available for seals.

REFERENCES

Boessenecker, R. W., & M. Churchill. 2013. A reevaluation of the morphology, paleoecology, and phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic walrus Pelagiarctos. PLoS One 8 (1): e54311.

Higdon, J. W., O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, R. M. D. Beck & S. H. Ferguson. 2007. Phylogeny and divergence of the pinnipeds (Carnivora: Mammalia) assessed using a multigene dataset. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 216.

Repenning, C. A., & R. H. Tedford. 1977. Otarioid seals of the Neogene. Geological Society Professional Paper 992: i–vi, 1–93, 24 pls.

Doe, it's Deer

Marsh deer Blastocerus dichotomus, copyright Jonathan Wilkins. An animal that just screams out, "Am I wearing the Chanel boots? Yes, I am."

I hardly need to explain what deer are, do I? Deers (Cervidae) are generally recognised as the second most diverse family of hoofed mammals (after bovids) in the modern fauna. Their most recognisable feature, of course, is the possession of antlers: bony cranial appendages that are shed and regrown every year rather than being permanently in place like the horns of a bovid. When antlers first grow, they are covered with a layer of skin (the velvet) that supplies them with blood, but this skin is later shed to expose the bare bone. In most species, antlers are only grown by males whose use them in conflicts during the mating season. The only genus of deer that grows antlers in both sexes is Rangifer, the reindeer. There is also one living species that lacks antlers, the Chinese water deer Hydropotes inermis; instead of antlers, males of this species possess large, dagger-like canines. In the majority of deer species, antlers are subcylindrical and often branched but broad palmate antlers have evolved on multiple occasions within the family. Antler morphology is generally significant in distinguishing taxa but it should be noted that variation within species is not unknown. For instance, the few recorded males of the small, now possibly extinct population of moose introduced to the south of New Zealand lacked the large palmate antlers generally associated with the species, probably due to poor nutritional conditions. Instead, they had more slender antlers that only became moderately palmate distally, like those of a fallow deer Dama dama.

One of the few photographs of moose from New Zealand, from here. I think this might be the one shot at Herrick Creek in 1952 but I could be wrong.

The first antlered deer are known from Europe back in the early Miocene, about 17 million years ago. They are not known from North America until some time later in the Pliocene, about five mya (Pitra et al. 2004), though these days they are every bit as diverse in the Americas as in Eurasia. They never made much inroad into Africa, only extending into the northernmost part of the continent, and they never made it into Australasia under their own steam, though a number of species have been dispersed to various parts of the world by humans. For instance, at least half a dozen species have become established in New Zealand, and until recently reindeer might be found wandering among penguin colonies in South Georgia.

Reindeer and king penguins on South Georgia, from here.

Recent decades have seen some pretty wild swings in cervid taxonomy, with the number of subfamilies recognised varying from two to seven, and some authors recognising a much larger number of genera and species than others. However, our general understanding of cervid interrelationships is pretty good these days, with many differences between systems being a question of ranking more than anything else. Recent studies have agreed that modern deer can be divided between two primary lineages that may be called the Cervinae and Capreolinae (Gilbert et al. 2006). The Cervinae include the majority of deer species in the Old World with a single species (the wapiti Cervus canadensis) extending its range into the New World. The remaining New World deer all belong to the Capreolinae, which also includes four genera (Rangifer, Hydropotes, the roe deer Capreolus and the moose Alces) found in Eurasia.

Male tufted deer Elaphodus cephalophus, copyright Heush.

The Cervinae can be divided between two tribes, the Muntiacini and Cervini. Muntiacini include the muntjaks of the genus Muntiacus and the tufted deer Elaphodus cephalophus. These are small deer native to southern and eastern Asia. Antlers are small and simple in all Muntiacini: muntjaks have antlers with only a single short anterior branch whereas the tufted deer has unbranched antlers that are barely visible under the large tuft of hair that this species has on top of the head. Muntiacini also resemble Hydropotes in their possession of large canines in the males. The other tribe, Cervini, includes larger deer species with more complex, multi-branched antlers. Some authors have historically placed all species of Cervini within a single genus Cervus; others may recognise nine distinct genera. Numbers of recognised species have also varied, largely due to phylogenetic studies finding that taxa previously recognised as conspecific subspecies may be more distantly related to each other or may not form monophyletic units. For instance, the wapiti has often been regarded as a subspecies of the red deer Cervus elaphus but recent studies have suggested that it is more closely related to the sika C. nippon and the white-lipped deer Przewalskium or Cervus albirostris, two east Asian species (Pitra et al. 2004). Difficulties in elucidating cervin phylogeny are probably best exemplified by the case of Père David's deer Elaphurus or Cervus davidianus, originally native to southern China but now only surviving in captivity. Molecular phylogenies associate this species closely with the brow-antlered deer Cervus eldi but it has many morphological features indicating a close relationship with C. elaphus, and it is widely suspected that Père David's deer originated from a hybridisation event between the two latter species.

Pudu (I think a northern pudu Pudu puda), copyright Neil McIntosh.

The Capreolinae can be divided between three main lineages. One comprises the roe deer and water deer; another comprises the moose (again, I'm making a point of referring to genera rather than species because the number of recognised species may differ between authors). Note that the position of the water deer suggests that the antler-less state of this species represents a secondary loss rather than retention of a primitive state. The majority of capreolines belong to the third lineage, commonly recognised as the tribe Odocoileini. Except for the reindeer, the species of this lineage are restricted to the New World, with the higher diversity in South America. The Odocoileini are perhaps the most taxonomically uncertain section of the deer family. There appears to be no question, at least, that Rangifer represents the sister group of all other Odocoileini. The remaining odocoileins have generally been divided between six genera: Odocoileus (including the mule deer O. hemionus and white-tailed deer O. virginianus), Mazama (brockets), Pudu (pudus), Hippocamelus (guemuls), the marsh deer Blastocerus dichotomus and the pampas deer Ozotoceros bezoarticus. However, except for the two monotypic genera, monophyly of all these taxa was placed in question by a recent molecular phylogenetic study of the group by Gutiérrez et al. (2017). The issue is particularly marked for the brockets, small deer with unbranched antlers, as not only the genus as a whole but also species within the genus have been indicated as non-monophyletic. Recent years have, as a result, seen something of a burst of new brocket species being described. It is quite probable that a similar taxonomic explosion may be in line for the genus Odocoileus, with both of the currently recognised species including a number of subspecies and each being of suspect monophyly. Matters are further complicated by the possibility of hybridisation between the two 'species'.

REFERENCES

Gilbert, C., A. Ropiquet & A. Hassanin. 2006. Mitochondrial and nuclear phylogenies of Cervidae (Mammalia, Ruminantia): systematics, morphology, and biogeography. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40 (1): 101–117.

Pitra, C., J. Fickel, E. Meijaard & P. C. Groves. 2004. Evolution and phylogeny of Old World deer. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33: 880–895.

The European Blackbuck

Horn cores of Gazellospira torticornis hispanica, from here.

From one -spira genus to another, somewhat different one. Gazellospira is a genus of spiral-horned gazelles known from the Pliocene and early Pleistocene of Europe and northern Asia (the reference to Miocene on the Wikipedia page for this genus looks like it might be an error). Most of the known specimens of Gazellospira have been assigned to a single species, G. torticornis, but a second species G. gromovae has been named from the lower Pleistocene of Tadzhikistan. Specimens from the Upper Pliocene of Spain have also been assigned to a distinct subspecies G. torticornis hispanica on the basis of their smaller size than G. torticornis from elsewhere (Garrido 2008).

Gazellospira is a close relative of the modern blackbuck Antilope cervicapra of southern Asia and would have resembled it in overall appearance. The most obvious difference between the two is probably the horns which diverge at a much greater angle in Gazellospira than in the blackbuck (at an eyeball estimate, the angle between the horns in Gazellospira looks to be close to 90° versus closer to 45–60° in Antilope). Like the blackbuck, Gazellospira was probably a more or less mixed feeder, alternating between browsing and grazing as the seasons required.

Gazellospira's eventual extinction was probably connected to the cooling climate of the Pleistocene (the related genus Gazella, which survives to the present in more southerly regions, disappeared from Europe at about the same time). It seems to have been gone from the greater part of Europe by the end of the Pliocene (Crégut-Bonnoure 2007), persisting into the Pleistocene as remnant populations in Iberia, Italy, Greece and central Asia.

REFERENCES

Crégut-Bonnoure, E. 2007. Apport des Caprinae et Antilopinae (Mammalia, Bovidae) à la biostratigraphie du Pliocène terminal et du Pléistocène d’Europe. Quaternaire 18 (1): 73–97.

Garrido, G. 2008. Lu muestra más moderna y completa conocida de Gazellospira torticornis (Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Mammalia en el Plioceno superior terminal de Europa occidental (Fonelas P-1, Cuenca de Guadix, Granada). Cuadernos del Museo Geominero 10: 413–460.

Hyopsodontids: Little Slinkers of the Palaeogene

The oft-repeated quote about mammalian palaeontology is that it tends to be focused on "the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth". This is primarily the result of pragmatic constraints: because they are much harder than the other bones of the mammalian skeleton, teeth are much more likely to be preserved in the fossil record. There are a great many fossil mammals for which the teeth remain pretty much the only part of the animal known. However, there is no question that this focus tends to limit our understanding of mammalian evolution. On the one hand, the complex morphology of many mammalian teeth means that they provide a wealth of characters for analysis. On the other, the morphology of teeth is heavily influenced by their bearer's diet and lifestyle, meaning that phylogenetically informative features are probably outweighed by the products of ecological convergence.

Reconstruction of Hyopsodus from Savage & Long (1978), via here.

All of which is pretty important background to keep in mind for any discussion of the Hyopsodontidae, a group of small (mostly rat- or weasel-sized) mammals recognised from the Palaeogene, the early part (Palaeocene and Eocene epochs) of the Caenozoic era. Hyopsodontids are generally assigned to the 'Condylarthra', a group of mammals that has long been recognised as one of the classic examples of a 'wastebasket taxon'. Condylarths were originally united as primitive relatives of the ungulates, the hoofed mammals. However, the individual condylarth families themselves have not got much in common otherwise, and (particularly with the current acceptance that 'ungulates' are probably not a monophyletic group) it is hard to come up with a definition for 'condylarths' that amounts to much more than 'medium-sized, unspecialised Palaeogene placentals'.

The hyopsodontids have been recognised as one of the longest-lived groups of 'condylarths', with assigned members extending from close to the start of the Palaeocene right up to near the end of the Eocene. Here again, though, we come up against the question of definition. The majority of taxa that have been aligned with the hyopsodontids are among those known only from teeth. Features of the hyopsodontid dentition include fairly simple incisors and premolars, small canines, and molars that are more or less bunodont (that is, the cusps are rounded or conical and clearly separate from each other rather than being connected by lophs). The problem is that these are all primitive, unspecialised features. Hyopsodontids are therefore defined more by their lack of alternate specialisations than anything positive, making them something of a wastebasket within a wastebasket.

Until recently, the only hyopsodontid known from much in the way of postcranial material was the type genus Hyopsodus, a number of species of which are known from an extended period of the Eocene. Indeed, Hyopsodus was one of the most abundant mammalian genera of its time, accounting for over a quarter of mammalian remains in a number of deposits where it is found (Rose 2006). These remains combine to give a picture of Hyopsodus as a long, low-bodied animal that has been compared in its proportions to a dachshund, a weasel, or a prairie dog. Hyopsodus would have been a ground-hugging slinker of an animal, build for concealment rather than speed. Short claws on the forelegs may be consistent with a certain degree of digging ability, whether in search of buried tubers or to scrape shallow burrows. Overall, Hyopsodus was probably a generalist, able to make a living wherever it may find itself: the real rat of the Eocene.

It was only relatively recently that Penkrot et al. (2008) provided further descriptions of limb-bone material from two other genera associated with the hyopsodontids, Apheliscus and Haplomylus. And despite the dental similarities between these genera and Hyopsodus, their postcranial anatomy indicates a quite different animal. Though small, the apheliscines were relatively long-legged, speedy runners: sprinters rather than slinkers. Penkrot et al. interpreted the apheliscines as relatives of the modern elephant shrews of Africa; whether or not there was a valid phylogenetic connection, the two would have certainly been ecologically similar.

Both Hyopsodus and Apheliscus were included in the broad-scale analysis of early placental phylogeny by Halliday et al. (2017). The results of the analysis corroborate the implications of the postcranial anatomy: despite dental similarities, the 'hyopsodontids' in the broad sense are not a monophyletic group. Over a dozen other genera are known of candidate hyopsodontids, but so long as they are known only from dental characters their true position remains uncertain. Without postcranial data, it seems, we can't handle the tooth.

REFERENCES

Halliday, T. J. D., P. Upchurch & A. Goswami. 2017. Resolving the relationships of Paleocene placental mammals. Biological Reviews 92 (1): 521–550.

Penkrot, T. A., S. P. Zack, K. D. Rose & J. I. Bloch. 2008. Postcranial morphology of Apheliscus and Haplomylus (Condylarthra, Apheliscidae): evidence for a Paleocene Holarctic origin of Macroscelidea. In: Sargis, E. J., & M. Dagosto (eds) Mammalian Evolutionary Morphology: A Tribute to Frederick S. Szalay pp. 73–106. Springer.

Rose, K. D. 2006. The Beginning of the Age of Mammals. JHU Press.

Where Do You Put Your Camels?

A dromedary Camelus dromedarius dares you to say what you make of it. Copyright John O'Neill.

In any discussion of the conflicts that may exist between morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic analysis, hippos and whales are bound to come up sooner or later. The claim in the late 1990s that these are each other's closest living relatives (and hence, that whales are nested fairly deeply within the artiodactyls, or even-toed hoofed mammals) was greeted with amazement, incredulity and more than a little skepticism. The story even caught the interest of the general public through news stories like this one, meaning that many people who are otherwise unfamiliar with the trivia of mammalian phylogeny may have picked up this detail. Since then, the whale-hippo relationship has been tested, re-tested and examined again, using every data source available. But the insertion of the whales was not the only way that molecular data mixed up the artiodactyl family tree. There was also the question of where one put the camels.

Based on anatomical data, it had previously been generally agreed that camelids (including camels and llamas) were most closely related to the ruminants, the group including such artiodactyls such as cattle, deer or giraffes. Both camelids and ruminants regurgitate cud pellets from the stomach back to the mouth in order to break their food more efficiently*, and both camelids and ruminants have a stomach divided into chambers with food only travelling to the rear section of the stomach after it has been re-chewed. They do differ in that whereas ruminants have the stomach divided into four distinct chambers, camelids only possess three; the rear two chambers (the abomasum and omasum) are not clearly differentiated in camelids. They were also united by features of the dentition, such as the presence of distinctly crescent-shaped cusps on the rear teeth. This latter feature lead the camelid+ruminant grouping to commonly be referred to as the Selenodontia (the 'moon-teeth').

*Yes, giraffes do chew cud. Yes, the cud does travel all the way between the stomach and the mouth each time.

However, the advent of molecular analyses cast doubt on this long-accepted arrangement. Instead of supporting the expected Selenodontia clade, molecular analyses placed camelids as the sister group to all other artiodactyls, with the ruminants instead being sister to the whales+hippos clade (with a pigs+peccaries clade the next clade out). This implied that the shared features of camelids and ruminants had arisen convergently (or else all other artiodactyls had reverted to a state considered more plesiomorphic for the group as a whole). In support for such a proposition, one might point to the ecological similarities in play. Camelids and ruminants are more specialist browsers than the non-selenodont artiodactyls, which are commonly more omnivorous (pigs and peccaries) or even carnivorous (whales).

Alternative phylogenies of artiodactyls, based on morphological (left) and molecular (right) data, from Spaulding et al (2009).
However, even if one is willing to credit that the 'selenodont' characters may have been the result of similar dietary pressures, one must also consider the issue that there are a number of fossil artiodactyl groups with selenodont or quasi-selenodont features. Examples of these include the Protoceratidae, a North American group that has commonly made some sort of appearance in popular books on fossil animals due to the weird home arrangements of some species, and the semi-bipedal Anoplotherium. In an influential morphological study of artiodactyl relationships, Gentry & Hooker (1988) referred to the possibility that some of these groups might be members of the selenodont stem, sitting outside the exclusive camelid+ruminant clade. Obviously, if selenodonts were not monophyletic, fossil 'selenodonts' might be aligned to either camelids or ruminants, but they couldn't be connected to both. Most studies that posited selenodont polyphyly, however, looked at living taxa only and did not consider extinct groups.

The most detailed study that I've found so far that considers the relationship between data from fossil taxa and from molecular sources in artiodactyl phylogeny is that published by Spaulding et al. (2009). This combined analysis of both morphological and molecular data produced results that were largely concordant with the latter, generally supporting placement of camelids as the sister group to all other artiodactyls (it's worth noting, mind you, that the size of the molecular data set used was considerably larger than that for the morphology, and an analysis of their morphological data only resulted in selenodont monophyly). The various 'proto-selenodonts' were scattered to the stems of various Recent clades. Protoceratids, for instance, were associated with ruminants rather than with camelids*. There are still a number of groups that remain yet to be analysed, but they've made a start.

*Another result of their analysis that is not directly relevant to the selenodont question, but cannot go unremarked upon, is that their tree indicates that Andrewsarchus, a lead contender for the title of largest terrestrial mammalian carnivore ever, might some sort of giant entelodont. I don't know how much I should read into this—not all of Andrewsarchus' potential relatives were included in Spaulding et al.'s analysis—but that's the sort of result that one just wants to be true.

REFERENCES

Gentry, A. W., & J. J. Hooker. 1988. The phylogeny of the Artiodactyla. In: Benton, M. J. (ed.) The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods vol 2. Mammals pp. 235–272. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Spaulding, M., M. A. O’Leary & J. Gatesy. 2009. Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) among mammals: increased taxon sampling alters interpretations of key fossils and character evolution. PLoS ONE 4(9): e7062. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007062