Advertisement

Journal of Mammalian Evolution

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

The Camelidae (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from the Quaternary of South America: Cladistic and Biogeographic Hypotheses

  • Carolina Saldanha Scherer
Review

Abstract

Presented here is a cladistic analysis of the South American and some North American Camelidae. This analysis shows that Camelini and Lamini are monophyletic groups, as are the genera Palaeolama and Vicugna, while Hemiauchenia and Lama are paraphyletic. Some aspects of the migration and distribution of South American camelids are also discussed, confirming in part the propositions of other authors. According to the cladistic analysis and previous propositions, it is possible to infer that two Camelidae migration events occurred in America. In the first one, Hemiauchenia arrived in South America and, this was related to the speciation processes that originated Lama and Vicugna. In the second event, Palaeolama migrated from North America to the northern portion of South America. It is evident that there is a need for larger studies about fossil Camelidae, mainly regarding older ages and from the South American austral region. This is important to better undertand the geographic and temporal distribution of Camelidae and, thus, the biogeographic aspects after the Great American Biotic Interchange.

Keywords

Camelidae South America Quaternary 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the financial grant and the Florida Museum of Natural History for the International Travel Grant. Also, UFRGS and FZBRS for the physical support to develop this work; to J. Ferigolo, A.M. Ribeiro, and T.V. Oliveira for their critical reading and help. To the follow persons and institutions for permission to access the respective fossil and extant collections: B. MacFadden and R. Hulbert (FLMNH/UF), M. Reguero and I. Olivares (MLP), A. Kramarz (MACN), A. Dondas (MMCNLS), B. Mamani and J. Vargas (MNHN), F. Paredes (MNPA), J.L. Roman-Carrion (EPN), M. Trindade (MACN, Salto), J. Solovyi (MHD), N. Guidon (FUMDHAM), C. Cartelle (PUCMG), J. Ferigolo and M. Jardim (FZBRS), K. Aaris (ZMUC), UFAC and DNPM. I thank also L. Avilla and J. Wible for the opportunity participation of this volume and the anonymous referees of this paper for their important contributions.

References

  1. Ameghino F (1884) Escursiones geológicas y paleontológicas en la Província de Buenos Aires. Bol Acad Cienc Córdoba 6:161–257Google Scholar
  2. Ameghino F (1889) Contribución al conocimiento de los mamíferos fósiles de la República Argentina. Actas Acad Nac Cienc Córdoba 6:1–1027Google Scholar
  3. Boule M, Thevenin A (1920) Mamiféres fossiles de Tarija (Mission Scientifique de Crequi-Montfort et Sénèchal de la Grange VII). Soudier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Branco W (1883) Ueber eine Fossile Säugethier-Fauna Von Punin bei Riobamba in Ecuador II - Beschreibung der Fauna. Pälaontol Abh 1:57–204Google Scholar
  5. Breyer J (1976) Titanotylopus (=Gigantocamelus) from the Great Plains Cenozoic. J Paleontol 50:783–788Google Scholar
  6. Cabrera A (1931) Sobre los camélidos fósiles y actuales de la América austral. Rev Mus La Plata 33:89–117Google Scholar
  7. Cabrera A (1935) Sobre la osteologia de Palaeolama. An Mus Argent Cienc Nat “Bernardino Rivadavia” 66:283–312Google Scholar
  8. Casamiquela R (1999) The Pleistocene vertebrate record of Chile. In: Rabassa J, Salemme M (eds) Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula. AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 91–107Google Scholar
  9. Castellanos A (1944) Paleontología estratigráfica de los sedimentos neógenos de la provincia de Córdoba. Publ Inst Fisiogr Geol Rosario 23:3–47Google Scholar
  10. Churcher CS (1965) Camelid material of the genus Palaeolama Gervais from the Talara tar-seeps, Peru, with description of a new subgenus Astylolama. Proc Zool Soc Lond 145:161–205Google Scholar
  11. Cione AL, Tonni EP (1995a) Chronostratigraphy and “Land-Mammal Ages” in the Cenozoic of southern South America: principles, practices and the “Uquian” problem. J Paleontol 69:135–159Google Scholar
  12. Cione AL, Tonni EP (1995b) Bioestratigrafía e cronología del Cenozóico Superior de la región pampeana. In: Alberdi MT, Leone G, Tonni EP (eds) Evolución biológica y climática de la región pampeana durante los últimos cinco millones de años. Un ensayo de correlación con el Mediterráneo occidental. CSIC, Madrid, pp 49–74Google Scholar
  13. Cione AL, Tonni EP (1999) Biostratigraphy and chronological scale of upper-most Cenozoic in the Pampean Area, Argentina. In: Rabassa J, Salemme M (eds) Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula. AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 23–51Google Scholar
  14. Cione AL, Tonni EP (2005) Bioestratigrafía basada en mamíferos del Cenozoico Superior de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. In: Barrio RE, Etcheverry RO, Caballé MF, Llambias E (eds) Geología y recursos Minerales de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Relatório del XVI Congreso geológico Argentino. Quick Press, La Plata, pp 183–200Google Scholar
  15. Cione AL, Tonni EP, Bond M, Carlini A, Pardiñas UFJ, Scillato-Yané G, Verzi D, Vucetich MG (1999) Ocurrence charts of Pleistocene Mammals in the Pampean area, eastern Argentina. In: Rabassa J, Salemme M (eds) Quaternary of South America and Antartic Peninsula. AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 53–59Google Scholar
  16. Coltorti M, Abbazzi L, Ferretti MP, Iacumin P, Paredes-Rios F, Pellegrini M, Pieruccini P, Rustioni M, Tito G, Rook L (2007) Last Glacial mammals in South America: a new scenario from Tarija (Bolivia). Naturwissenschaften 94:288–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalquest WW, Mooser O (1980) Late Hemphillian mammals of the Ocote local fauna, Guanajuato, Mexico. Pearce-Sellards Series 32:1–25Google Scholar
  18. Deraco MV, Scherer CS, Powell JE (2006) Sobre Hemiauchenia paradoxa del Pleistoceno del Río Dulce, Provincia de Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Paleontologia em Destaque 57: 47–48Google Scholar
  19. Deschamps CM (2005) Late Cenozoic mammal bio-chronostratigraphy in southwestern Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 42:733–750Google Scholar
  20. Eisenberg JF, Redford KH (1999) Mammals of the Neotropics: The Central Neotropics. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrero BS (2006) Avances en el conocimiento de la diversidad de artiodáctilos en el Pleistoceno de la Provincia de Entre Ríos, Argentina. Ameghiniana 43:38RGoogle Scholar
  22. Frenguelli J (1936) La serie geológica de la República Argentina en sus relaciones con la antigüedad del hombre. Hist Nac Arg 1:106–113Google Scholar
  23. Gervais H, Ameghino F (1880) Les mammifères fósiles de l’Amerique du Sud. F. Savy, Paris and Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  24. Gervais P (1855) Recherches sur les mammifères fósiles de l’Amérique Meridionale (Expédition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique du Sud, de Rio de Janeiro à Lima et de Lima au Pará, exécutée par ordre du Gouvernement français pendant les années 1843 à 1847 sous la direction de F. Castelnau). Zoologie 7:1–63Google Scholar
  25. Goloboff P (1999) NONA ver. 2.0 Program and Documentation. Published by author, TucumanGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison JA (1979) Revision of the Camelinae (Artiodactyla, Tylopoda) and description of the new genus Alforjas. Univ Kansas Paleontol Contrib 95:1–20Google Scholar
  27. Harrison JA (1985) Giant camels from the Cenozoic of North America. Smithsonian Contrib Paleobiol 57:2–39Google Scholar
  28. Hoffstetter R (1952) Les mammiféres pléistocènes de la République de l’Equateur. Mém Soc Géol France (Nouvelle série) 66:1–391Google Scholar
  29. Honey JG, Harrison JA, Prothero DR, Stevens MS (1998) Camelidae. In: Janis CM, Scott KM, Jacobs LL (eds) Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 439–462Google Scholar
  30. Honey JG, Taylor BE (1978) A generic revision of the Protolabidini (Mammalia, Camelidae), with a description of two new Protolabidines. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 161:367–426Google Scholar
  31. Kraglievich L (1946) Sobre Camélidos Chapadmalenses. Not Mus La Plata Paleontol 93:317–331Google Scholar
  32. Kraglievich L (1959) Contribuciones al conocimiento de la geología cuaternaria en la Argentina. IV: Nota acerca de la geología costera en la desembocadura del Arroyo Malacara (Prov. de Buenos Aires). An Mus Argent Cienc Nat "Bernardino Rivadavia" 17:3–9Google Scholar
  33. Labarca RO, López PG (2006) Los mamíferos finipleistocénicos de la Formación Quebrada Quereo (IV Región - Chile): biogeografía, bioestratigrafía y inferencias paleoambientales. Mastozool Neotr 13:89–101Google Scholar
  34. Lesbre FX (1903) Recherches anatomiques sur lês Camélidés. Arch Mus D´Hist Natur Lyon 8:1–196Google Scholar
  35. López PM, Martínez IR, Labarca RE, Jackson DS (2005) Registro de Hippidion, Canidae, Camelidae y Edentata en el Sector de Ojo de Opache, Calama, II Región. Notic Mens Mus Nac Hist Nat 355:22–26Google Scholar
  36. López-Aranguren DJ (1930) Camélidos fósiles argentinos. Anal Soc Cien Arg 109:15–39, 97–126Google Scholar
  37. Lund PW (1837) Segunda Memória sobre a fauna das cavernas. In: Paula-Couto C (ed) Memórias sobre a Paleontologia Brasileira (Revistas e comentadas por Carlos de Paula Couto). Ministério da Educação e Saúde, Instituto Nacional do Livro, Rio de Janeiro, pp 131–203Google Scholar
  38. MacFadden BJ (2000) Middle Pleistocene climate change recorded in fossil mammal teeth from Tarija, Bolivia, and upper limit of the Ensenadan Land-Mammal Age. Quaternary Res 54:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacFadden BJ, Siles O, Zeitler P, Johnson NM, Campbell Jr KE (1983) Magnetic polarity stratigraphy of the middle Pleistocene (Ensenadan) Tarija Formation of southern Bolivia. Quaternary Res 19:172–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall LG, Berta A, Hoffstetter R, Pascual R, Reig OA, Bombin M, Mones A (1984) Mammals and stratigraphy: geochronology of the continental mammal-bearing Quaternary of South America. Palaeovertebrata Mém Estraord:1–76Google Scholar
  41. Matthew WD, Cook HJA (1909) Pliocene fauna from western Nebraska. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 26:361–414Google Scholar
  42. McKenna MC, Bell SK (1997) Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Menegaz AN, Goin FJ, Ortiz-Jaureguizar E (1989) Análisis morfológico e morfométrico multivariado de los representantes fósiles y vivientes del género Lama (Artiodactyla, Camelidae). Sus implicancias sistemáticas, biogeográficas, ecológicas y biocronológicas. Ameghiniana 26:153–172Google Scholar
  44. Mones A (1988) Nuevos registros de mamíferos fósiles de la Formación San José (Plioceno-?Pleistoceno Inferior) (Mammalia: Xenarthra, Artiodactyla, Rodentia). Commun Paleontol Mus Hist Nat 20:255–277Google Scholar
  45. Montellano M (1989) Pliocene Camelidae of Rancho El Ocote, Central Mexico. J Mammal 70:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nixon KC (1999–2002) WinClada ver. 1.0000. Published by author, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  47. Olsen ST (1988) The camel in ancient China and an osteology of the camel. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phil 140:18–58Google Scholar
  48. Ruez DR (2005) Earliest record of Palaeolama (Mammalia, Camelidae) with comments on “Palaeolamaguanajuatensis. J Vertebr Paleontol 25:741–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rusconi C (1933) Nuevas especies de mamíferos terciarios procedentes del Piso Chapadmalense (Plioceno medio). Anal Soc Cient Arg 115:1–101Google Scholar
  50. Salas R, Stucchi M, Devries TJ (2003) The presence of Plio-Pleistocene Palaeolama sp. (Artiodactyla, Camelidae) on the southern coast of Peru. Bull Inst Français Ét Andines 32:347–359Google Scholar
  51. Scherer CS, Ferigolo J, Ribeiro AM, Cartelle C (2007) Contribution to the knowledge of Hemiauchenia paradoxa (Artiodactyla, Camelidae) from the Pleistocene of southern Brazil. Rev Bras Paleontol 10:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Socorro OAA (2006) Tesoros paleontológicos de Venezuela, el Cuaternario del Estado Falcón. Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural, Taima TaimaGoogle Scholar
  53. Tauber AA (1999) Hallazgo de uma vicuña em el Pleistoceno de la Província de Córdoba, República Argentina. Ameghiniana 36:55–62Google Scholar
  54. Tonni EP, Politis GG (1980) La distribución del guanaco (Mammalia, Camelidae) en la Província de Buenos Aires durante el Pleistoceno Tardio y Holoceno. Los factores climáticos como causas de su retracción. Ameghiniana 1:53–66Google Scholar
  55. Ubilla M, Perea D (1999) Quaternary vertebrates of Uruguay: a biostratigraphic and climatic overview. In: Rabassa J, Salemme M (eds) Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula. AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 75–89Google Scholar
  56. Webb SD (1965) The osteology of Camelops. Bull Los Angeles County Mus Sci 1:1–54Google Scholar
  57. Webb SD (1972) Locomotor evolution in camels. Forma et Functio 5:99–111Google Scholar
  58. Webb SD (1974) Pleistocene llamas of Florida with a brief review of the Lamini. In: Webb SD (ed) Pleistocene Mammals of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainsville, pp 170–213Google Scholar
  59. Webb SD (1985) Late Cenozoic mammal dispersals between the Americas. In: Stehli FG, Webb SD (eds) The Great American Biotic Interchange. Plenum Press, New York, pp 357–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Webb SD, Meachen J (2004) On the origin of lamine Camelidae including a new genus from the late Miocene of the High Plains. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 36:349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webb SD, Stehli FG (1995) Selenodont Artiodactyla (Camelidae and Cervidae) from the Leisey Shell Pits, Hills Borough County, Florida. Bull Florida Mus Nat Hist 37:621–643Google Scholar
  62. Woodburne MO (2010) The Great American Biotic Interchange: dispersals, tectonics, climate, sea level and holding pens. J Mammal Evol 17: 245–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Ambientais e BiológicasBahiaBrazil

Personalised recommendations