Evolution and Diversification of the Archonta in an Arboreal Milieu

Szalay, Frederick S.; Drawhorn, Gerrell M.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-1051-8_4

Cited by 112 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variation among scandentians has rarely been considered in studies of mammalian phylogenetics, with Tupaia typically being used to represent the clade (4), even though Ptilocercus is widely considered to be the most plesiomorphic living tree shrew (17,19,29,30). Our phylogenetic analysis takes these sources of variability into account by including data from all well preserved plesiadapiform cranial specimens and from both ptilo-cercid (Ptilocercus lowii) and tupaiid (Tupaia glis) tree shrews (see…”

Section: Phylogenetic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Well preserved crania have been documented for only three families: Plesiadapidae, Microsyopidae, and Paromomyidae (1, 9-11). Postcrania are known from a taxonomically limited sample of North American and European plesiadapids (1), from a sample of North American paromomyids and micromomyids (3, 4, 12) the identification and associations of which are still controversial (13,14), from a recently published North American carpolestid skeleton (15, 16), and from a few other isolated and questionably identified elements (7,17,18). Following the suggestion that paromomyid and micromomyid plesiadapiforms were mitten-gliders closely related to modern dermopterans (3, 4, 12), interpretations of locomotor modes from this limited postcranial sample have played a central role in evolutionary arguments about the group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Paleocene skeletons and the relationship of plesiadapiforms to crown-clade primates

Bloch

Silcox

Boyer

et al. 2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

246

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plesiadapiforms are central to studies of the origin and evolution of primates and other euarchontan mammals (tree shrews and flying lemurs). We report results from a comprehensive cladistic analysis using cranial, postcranial, and dental evidence including data from recently discovered Paleocene plesiadapiform skeletons (Ignacius clarkforkensis sp. nov.; Dryomomys szalayi, gen. et sp. nov.), and the most plesiomorphic extant tree shrew, Ptilocercus lowii. Our results, based on the fossil record, unambiguously place plesiadapiforms with Euprimates and indicate that the divergence of Primates (sensu lato) from other euarchontans likely occurred before or just after the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary (65 Mya), notably later than logistical model and molecular estimates. Anatomical features associated with specialized pedal grasping (including a nail on the hallux) and a petrosal bulla likely evolved in the common ancestor of Plesiadapoidea and Euprimates (Euprimateformes) by 62 Mya in either Asia or North America. Our results are consistent with those from recent molecular analyses that group Dermoptera with Scandentia. We find no evidence to support the hypothesis that any plesiadapiforms were mitten-gliders or closely related to Dermoptera.Euarchonta ͉ phylogeny ͉ Paromomyidae ͉ Micromomyidae ͉ Paleogene T he origin of Primates represents the first clear step in the divergence of humans from the rest of Mammalia, yet our understanding of this important period in evolutionary history remains limited. The systematic relationships of Paleocene-Eocene plesiadapiforms, which have been considered the ancestors of either Euprimates (primates of ''modern aspect'' or crown-clade primates) (1, 2) or of Dermoptera (3, 4) continue to be debated. Clarifying the position of plesiadapiforms is central to understanding the broader relationships among euarchontan mammals (Primates, Scandentia, Dermoptera), and to testing adaptive hypotheses of primate origins (5, 6) by using direct evidence from the fossil record.Plesiadapiforms are among the most diverse and well sampled Paleogene mammal groups, with Ͼ120 species classified into 11 or 12 families from the Paleocene and Eocene of North America, Europe, Asia, and possibly Africa (7,8). The plesiadapiform dental record is extremely diverse, suggesting correlated diversity in diet and behavior; however, comparatively little is known about the cranial or postcranial morphology of plesiadapiforms [see supporting information (SI) Text, Part 1]. Well preserved crania have been documented for only three families: Plesiadapidae, Microsyopidae, and Paromomyidae (1, 9-11). Postcrania are known from a taxonomically limited sample of North American and European plesiadapids (1), from a sample of North American paromomyids and micromomyids (3, 4, 12) the identification and associations of which are still controversial (13,14), from a recently published North American carpolestid skeleton (15, 16), and from a few other isolated and questionably identified elements (7,17,18). Following the sugges...

show abstract

Section: Phylogenetic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

New Paleocene skeletons and the relationship of plesiadapiforms to crown-clade primates

Bloch

Silcox

Boyer

et al. 2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

246

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primates, tree shrews, and flying lemurs share derived features of the astragalocalcaneal complex. However, tarsal features uniting bats with other archontans are absent (39). Similarly, albumin and transferrin immunological data place tree shrews, flying lemurs, and primates into a clade to the exclusion of bats (40).…”

Section: Monte Carlo Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the absence of tarsal modifications that unite bats with other archontans, the primary rationale for including bats in Archonta is the suite of novel features that bats share with flying lemurs (37,39,41). Bats and flying lemurs share a patagium with two unique features not seen in other gliding mammals: a ME logdet, minimum evolution with logdet distances; ME-ML, minimum evolution with ML-corrected distances; GTR, general time reversible model; ⌫, gamma distribution of rates; I, allowance for invariant sites; HKY, Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano model of sequence evolution.…”

Section: Monte Carlo Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbat paraphyly and the convergent evolution of a key innovation in Old World rhinolophoid microbats

Teeling

Madsen

Bussche

et al. 2002

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

181

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular phylogenies challenge the view that bats belong to the superordinal group Archonta, which also includes primates, tree shrews, and flying lemurs. Some molecular studies also challenge microbat monophyly and instead support an alliance between megabats and representative rhinolophoid microbats from the families Rhinolophidae (horseshoe bats, Old World leaf-nosed bats) and Megadermatidae (false vampire bats). Another molecular study ostensibly contradicts these results and supports traditional microbat monophyly, inclusive of representative rhinolophoids from the family Nycteridae (slit-faced bats). Resolution of the microbat paraphyly͞monophyly issue is essential for reconstructing the temporal sequence and deployment of morphological character state changes associated with flight and echolocation in bats. If microbats are paraphyletic, then laryngeal echolocation either evolved more than once in different microbats or was lost in megabats after evolving in the ancestor of all living bats. To examine these issues, we used a 7.1-kb nuclear data set for nine outgroups and twenty bats, including representatives of all rhinolophoid families. Phylogenetic analyses and statistical tests rejected both Archonta and microbat monophyly. Instead, bats are in the superorder Laurasiatheria and microbats are paraphyletic. Further, the superfamily Rhinolophoidea is polyphyletic. The rhinolophoid families Rhinolophidae and Megadermatidae belong to the suborder Yinpterochiroptera along with rhinopomatids and megabats. The rhinolophoid family Nycteridae belongs to the suborder Yangochiroptera along with vespertilionoids, noctilionoids, and emballonuroids. These results resolve the apparent conflict between previous molecular studies that sampled different rhinolophoid families. An important implication of rhinolophoid polyphyly is independent evolution of key anatomical innovations associated with the nasal-emission of echolocation pulses.bats ͉ Chiroptera ͉ echolocation ͉ Mammalia ͉ phylogeny

show abstract

“…Euarchontan mammals probably evolved from an arboreal ancestor [3,4] and many proposed euarchontan synapomorphies are also associated with climbing capabilities [1]. The oldest known (approx.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New partial skeletons of Palaeocene Nyctitheriidae and evaluation of proposed euarchontan affinities

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small-bodied, insectivorous Nyctitheriidae are known in the Palaeogene fossil record almost exclusively from teeth and fragmentary jaws and have been referred to Eulipotyphla (shrews, moles and hedgehogs) based on dental similarities. By contrast, isolated postcrania attributed to the group suggest arboreality and a relationship to Euarchonta (primates, treeshrews and colugos). Cretaceous–Palaeocene adapisoriculid insectivores have also been proposed as early euarchontans based on postcranial similarities. We describe the first known dentally associated nyctitheriid auditory regions and postcrania, and use them to test the proposed relationship to Euarchonta with cladistic analyses of 415 dental, cranial and postcranial characteristics scored for 92 fossil and extant mammalian taxa. Although nyctitheriid postcrania share similarities with euarchontans likely related to arboreality, results of cladistic analyses suggest that nyctitheriids are closely related to Eulipotyphla. Adapisoriculidae is found to be outside of crown Placentalia. These results suggest that similarities in postcranial morphology among nyctitheriids, adapisoriculids and euarchontans represent separate instances of convergence or primitive retention of climbing capabilities.

show abstract

Evolution and Diversification of the Archonta in an Arboreal Milieu

Cited by 112 publications

References 30 publications

New Paleocene skeletons and the relationship of plesiadapiforms to crown-clade primates

New Paleocene skeletons and the relationship of plesiadapiforms to crown-clade primates

Microbat paraphyly and the convergent evolution of a key innovation in Old World rhinolophoid microbats

New partial skeletons of Palaeocene Nyctitheriidae and evaluation of proposed euarchontan affinities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About