Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 93, Issue 8, pp 407–411 | Cite as

Asian gliriform origin for arctostylopid mammals

  • Pieter Missiaen
  • Thierry Smith
  • Dian-Yong Guo
  • Jonathan I. Bloch
  • Philip D. Gingerich
Short Communication

Abstract

Arctostylopids are common in Late Palaeocene and Early Eocene mammal faunas of Asia, but they are rare in North America. From the time of their first discovery, arctostylopids were grouped with the strictly endemic South American Notoungulata based on their strikingly similar dental morphology. This relationship was challenged based on dental morphology of more recently discovered arctostylopids and on supposed tarsal morphology (based on unassociated material) of the Asian arctostylopid Palaeostylops. Therefore, Arctostylopidae were placed in a separate order, Arctostylopida, of enigmatic affinities. Many authors, however, continue to unite Arctostylopidae and Notoungulata based on dental similarities. In the Late Palaeocene Subeng site in Inner Mongolia, we identified the Palaeostylops tarsals based on their size and abundance. This identification is supported by comparison to unpublished Arctostylops tarsals from the North American Clarkforkian, derived from a semi-articulated skeleton also including dental material. Tarsal morphology shows moderate similarity to the gliriform Pseudictops, and strong resemblance to the tarsally conservative gliroid Rhombomylus. Hence, Arctostylopidae may best be grouped with Asian non-gliroid Gliriformes, which we interpret as having dispersed into North America in the Late Palaeocene.

Keywords

Dental Material Dental Morphology Dental Formula Elephant Shrew Biogeographic Implication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Christian de Muizon (MNHN, France), Peter Kondrashov (NMSU, USA) and Lilian Bergqvist (UFRJ, Brazil) for the discussions and access to reference materials. At the RBINS, Julien Cillis produced the SEM micrographs, and Stephane Berton prepared the drawings. This work was financially supported by projects MO/36/011 and BL/36/C12 of the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (TS) and by the RF-Flanders (PM).

References

  1. Asher RJ, Meng J, Wible JR, McKenna MC, Rougier GW, Dashzeveg D, Novacek MJ (2005) Stem Lagomorpha and the antiquity of Glires. Nature 307:1091–1094Google Scholar
  2. Beard KC (1998) East of Eden: Asia as an important center of taxonomic origination in mammalian evolution. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 34:5–39Google Scholar
  3. Bergqvist LP (1996) Reassociação do pós-crânio às espécies de ungulados da bacia de S. J. de Itaboraí (Paleoceno), Estado do Rio de Janeiro, e filogenia dos “Condylarthra” e ungulados sul-americanos com base no pós-crânio. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, p 407Google Scholar
  4. Bleefeld AR, McKenna MC (1985) Skeletal integrity of Mimolagus rodens (Lagomorpha, Mammalia). Am Mus Novit 2806:1–5Google Scholar
  5. Bloch JI (1999) Partial skeleton of Arctostylops from the Paleocene of Wyoming: arctostylopid–notoungulate relationship revisited. J Vertebr Paleontol 19:32AGoogle Scholar
  6. Cifelli RL (1983a) The origin and affinities of the South American Condylarthra and Early Tertiary Litopterna (Mammalia). Am Mus Novit 2772:1–49Google Scholar
  7. Cifelli RL (1983b) Eutherian tarsals from the late Paleocene of Brazil. Am Mus Nov 2761:1–31Google Scholar
  8. Cifelli RL (1993) The phylogeny of the native South American ungulates. In: Szalay FS, Novacek MJ, McKenna MC (eds) Mammal phylogeny placentals. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 195–216Google Scholar
  9. Cifelli RL, Schaff CR, McKenna MC (1989) The relationships of the Arctostylopidae (Mammalia): new data and interpretation. Bull Mus Comp Zool 152:1–44Google Scholar
  10. Gingerich PD (1985) South American mammals in the Paleocene of North America. In: Stehli FG, Webb SD (eds) The great American biotic interchange. Plenum, New York, pp 123–137Google Scholar
  11. Kondrashov PE, Lucas SG (2004) Palaeostylops iturus from the Upper Paleocene of Mongolia and the status of Arctostylopida (Mammalia, Eutheria). New Mex Mus Natl Hist Sci Bull 26:195–203Google Scholar
  12. Matthew WD (1915) A revision of the lower Eocene Wasatch and Wind River faunas. Part IV. Entelonychia, Primates, and Insectivora (part). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 34:429–483Google Scholar
  13. Matthew WD, Granger W (1925) Fauna and correlation of the Gashato Formation of Mongolia. Am Mus Nov 189:1–12Google Scholar
  14. Meng J, Hu Y, Li C (2003) The osteology of Rhombomylus (Mammalia, Glires): implications for phylogeny and evolution of Glires. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 275:1–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Missiaen P, Smith T (2005) A new nyctitheriid insectivore from Inner Mongolia (China) and its implications for the origin of the Asian nyctitheriids. Acta Palaeont Pol 50:513–522Google Scholar
  16. Patterson B, Pascual R (1972) The fossil mammal fauna of South America. In: Keast A, Erk FC, Glass BP (eds) Evolution, mammals and southern continents. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, pp 247–309Google Scholar
  17. Schlosser M (1923) Säugetiere. In: Broili F, Schlosser M (eds) Grundzüge der Paläontologie (Paläozoologie) II. Abt: Vertebrata, neubeart. MR Oldenbourg, Munich, pp 402–689Google Scholar
  18. Smith T, Van Itterbeeck J, Missiaen P (2004) Oldest Plesiadapiform (Mammalia, Proprimates) of Asia and its paleobiogeographical implication with North America. CR Palevol 3:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sulimski A (1968) Paleocene genus Pseudictops Matthew, Granger and Simpson 1929 (Mammalia) and its revision. Palaeontol Pol 19:101–129Google Scholar
  20. Szalay FS (1977) Phylogenetic relationships and a classification of the eutherian Mammalia. In: Hecht MK, Goody PC, Hecht BM (eds) Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. Plenum, New York, pp 315–374Google Scholar
  21. Szalay FS (1985) Rodent and lagomorph morphotype adaptations, origins and relationships: some postcranial attributes analyzed. In: Luckett WP, Hartenberger JL (eds) Evolutionary relationships among rodents: a multidisciplinary analysis. Plenum, New York, pp 83–132Google Scholar
  22. Tabuce R, Telles Antunes M, Smith R, Smith T (2006) Dental variability and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene mammal Microhyus. Acta Palaeontol Pol 51:37–52Google Scholar
  23. Ting S (1998) Paleocene and early Eocene land mammal ages of Asia. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 34:124–147Google Scholar
  24. Wyss AR, Meng J (1996) Application of phylogenetic taxonomy to poorly resolved crown clades: a stem-modified node-based definition of Rodentia. Syst Biol 45:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zack SP (2004) An early Eocene Arctostylopid (Mammalia: Arctostylopida) from the Green River Basin, Wyoming. J Vertebr Paleontol 24:498–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Missiaen
    • 1
  • Thierry Smith
    • 2
  • Dian-Yong Guo
    • 3
  • Jonathan I. Bloch
    • 4
  • Philip D. Gingerich
    • 5
  1. 1.Research Unit PaleontologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of PaleontologyRoyal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS)BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Natural SciencesInner Mongolian Museum (IMM)HohhotChina
  4. 4.Florida Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  5. 5.Department of Geological Sciences and Museum of PaleontologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations