tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post3377751536064033966..comments2024-03-14T08:31:00.349-06:00Comments on The Coastal Paleontologist: Puijila, a very basal 'pinnipedimorph'Robert Boesseneckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04157434108254005433noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-51089261341349530722009-04-29T18:09:00.000-06:002009-04-29T18:09:00.000-06:00Fingers crossed, but a chapter of my diss will hop...Fingers crossed, but a chapter of my diss will hopefully be a total evidence phylogeny for pinnipeds, including select arctoid taxa. We will see what comes of that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10767952407881212708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-33087604562315506872009-04-28T15:37:00.000-06:002009-04-28T15:37:00.000-06:00Hey Guys,
I'm probably just going to continue on ...Hey Guys,<br /><br />I'm probably just going to continue on posts with Puijila, and early pinniped evolution; its a fascinating subject, and after my thesis committee meeting tommorrow, it is something I really should read up on more (i.e. especially Berta et al. 1989, and Berta and Ray 1990/1).<br /><br />In any event - Jorge, I'm not surprised. I really think someone should re-analyze those fossils and compare them with contemporary arctoids. Maybe something I'll do in the future, who knows. I would be a hell of a lot less skeptical if there was something other than a partial femur (i.e. a partial skull or dentary).<br /><br />And Brian, as far as Potamotherium goes - M. Churchill just emailed me a pdf of Finarelli (2008?9?) in J.Mam.Ev. I've seen it before, but not in a long while; Potamotherium there is the sister taxon to Lutra, for cryin out loud. Granted, as Morgan stated, the purpose of the study wasn't to test pinniped interrelationships. However, I remain curious, and I think it is a very interesting hypothesis to say the least.<br /><br />BobbyRobert Boesseneckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04157434108254005433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-23270031659015295052009-04-27T07:03:00.000-06:002009-04-27T07:03:00.000-06:00Hey Robert,
I was talking to a friend on Friday a...Hey Robert,<br /><br />I was talking to a friend on Friday about the SC phocid, and what he was telling me was that there might be some uncertainties about the stratigraphic provenance of the specimens (I later saw that this is also mentioned in Deméré et al., 2003). I wrote a critique about the paper describing the phocid femora about 2 years ago, but I can't find it in this computer or remember what I wrote :S<br /><br />And about <I>Puijila</I> lets hope that a more thorough analysis, with more taxa, appears soon.J. Velez-Juarbehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13939389115952799046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-35595110778513231892009-04-23T18:23:00.000-06:002009-04-23T18:23:00.000-06:00Also, did anyone else notice that Potamotherium, w...Also, did anyone else notice that Potamotherium, which has previously been considered a basal otter (Carroll 1988) or an oligobunid (Wang et al ??), is here considered a pinniped ancestor too? <br />What is also lacking from this analysis are most modern and fossil otters. I wonder if they would get a different result if they included Aonyx, Pteroneura, Amblonyx, or even Enhydrotherium?Brian Lee Beattyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09964393108719483799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-29637169237605901052009-04-23T12:36:00.000-06:002009-04-23T12:36:00.000-06:00Ha spent an hour writing that previous comment, Bo...Ha spent an hour writing that previous comment, Bobby beat me to the punch!Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10293693723899837239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-23150875125373980492009-04-23T12:34:00.000-06:002009-04-23T12:34:00.000-06:00I was a little puzzled that they didn't include an...I was a little puzzled that they didn't include <I>any</I> extant pinnipeds in their phylogenetic analysis. The methods section states "the emphasis on basal arctoids aims to avoid the effects of long branch attraction." But then why were <I>Mustela</I>, <I>Lontra</I> and <I>Ailurus</I> included? I realize it's not possible to entirely lay out detailed methodology in a <I>Nature</I> paper, but I haven't much in the way of details on why these taxa were included in the supplementary info, lots of other cool stuff in there though. <br /><br />Also I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but given previous suggestions of a relationship between <I>Kolponomos</I> and <I>Amphictis</I>, and the marine habits of the former, it would have been interesting to see <I>Kolponomos</I> in the analysis as well. I've pondered blogging about this but I think I stick with the Abu Ghraib/dick jokes...wouldn't want to get myself in trouble or offend anyone.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10293693723899837239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-32892572814511543792009-04-23T11:41:00.000-06:002009-04-23T11:41:00.000-06:00Hey Morgan,
I certainly agree about the arctic C-...Hey Morgan,<br /><br />I certainly agree about the arctic C-O-O explaining the phocid appearance. We just need some older fossils from Oligocene strata up there - someone really needs to go to the Cornwallius type locality in Alaska to look for pinnipeds, I think.<br /><br />I definitely agree about a broader analysis - at the very least including 'basal' taxa like Proneotherium/Neotherium, Desmatophoca, Thalassoleon, some phocids, and some extant critters. I was pretty dissappointed that they didn't include Kolponomos in their analysis, which according to Tedford et al. 1994, is the sister taxon to pinnipeds.<br /><br />I didn't catch the 'otarioid' thing (although I'm sure they didn't use that term), but I'll look through there again; Richard Tedford is a coauthor on the paper anyway. And it is definitely sorta depressing to think that the closest pinniped fossils to hear may be in the subarctic...<br /><br />Jorge - I don't really buy for one minute the 'phocid' seals from the Chandler Bridge Fm. of SC. After all, those specimens are just proximal femora. I think someone really needs to redescribe them, and compare them with Enaliarctine femora, and basal odobenid, otariid, and desmatophocid femora, and a broader swath of extant pinniped femora. Additionally, they should now be compared with Potamotherium (which they may have done) and Puijila.Robert Boesseneckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04157434108254005433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-91137894414781566232009-04-23T08:59:00.000-06:002009-04-23T08:59:00.000-06:00Enaliarctos tedfordi and E. barnesi are the best k...<I>Enaliarctos tedfordi</I> and <I>E. barnesi</I> are the best known Chattian pinnipeds, but there's also the "Oligocene seal" of Koretsky & Sanders (2002) from Chattian age deposits in South Carolina, which according to them is a Phocidae. This seems to favor a Late Eocene/Early Oligocene Arctic origin for pinnipeds.<br /><br />Koretsky, I. A. & A. E. Sanders. 2002. Paleontology of the Late Oligocene Ashley and Chandler Bridge Formations of South Carolina, 1: Paleogene pinniped remains; the oldest known seal (Carnivora: Phocidae); pp. 179-183 in R. J. Emry (ed.), Cenozoic Mammals of Land and Sea: tributes to the career of Clayton E. Ray. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 93.J. Velez-Juarbehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13939389115952799046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953405279736337089.post-83059245181771049082009-04-23T08:49:00.000-06:002009-04-23T08:49:00.000-06:00I kind of "thought" about an arctic center of orig...I kind of "thought" about an arctic center of origin last year. While it doesn't fit into the Enaliarctos data (and yes, one fossil a center of origin doesn't make), it does work for at least one good reason. It would explain the weird and sudden appearance of both phocid subfamilies in the Mid Miocene, in the Atlantic. If that group had it's center of origin there, it would explain the gap quite nicely, and make biogeographic sense<br /><br />The phylogeny is interesting, however it would have been nice to include more fossil and modern pinnipeds. As is, it's difficult to tell where exactly Puijila falls, especially since the author seem to want to "ratchet" up Enaliarctos as just an ancestor to Otariids and Odobenids, and not phocids.<br /><br />At least there is now hope that maybe we can find some stem pinnipeds closer to home...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10767952407881212708noreply@blogger.com