<i>Muknalia minima</i> from the Yucatán of Mexico is synonymous with the collared peccary, Pecari tajacu (Artiodactyla: Tayassuidae)

Abstract

Ongoing investigation of peccary remains from fossiliferous deposits in the Yucatán resulted in re-examination of previously identified tayassuid fossils from the region. This included the recently described new genus and species of peccary, Muknalia minima, which is based on a dentary from Muknal Cave near Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Diagnostic characters of this taxon include a concave notch along the caudal edge of the ascending ramus and a ventrally directed angular process. Our assessment of the holotype indicates that these characteristics are not a reflection of the original morphology, but are instead the result of breakage and polishing of the posterior aspect of the dentary. Measurements and intact morphological features indicate the Muknal Cave specimen belongs to the extant collared peccary, Pecari tajacu.

Muknalia is a Collared Peccary (Pecari tajacu): A Reply to Stinnesbeck et al.

“…A new genus and species of Pleistocene peccary (Muknalia minima) was recently described by Stinnesbeck et al (2017Stinnesbeck et al ( , 2018 based on an isolated left dentary from a submerged Yucatán cave. We observed and assessed this specimen and interpreted it to be synonymous with the collared peccary, Pecari tajacu (Schubert et al, 2020). Our taxonomic revision is rejected by Stinnesbeck (this volume), and we follow up here with additional comments supporting the synonymy.…”

“…According to Stinnesbeck et al (this volume), Schubert et al (2020) disagreed with the identification of the new taxon because we interpreted the shape of the specimen to be the result of "anthropological handling (breakage and polishing)" rather than intact morphology. This is not accurate; rather, we interpret the specimen to be Pecari tajacu based on intact morphology and size (Schubert et al, 2020), and consider the taxonomically unique features described by Stinnesbeck et al (2017) to be misinterpretations of anatomy and altered surfaces. The specimen has multiple breaks that may or may not have been caused by humans.…”

“…One of the primary morphological features noted to be unique (Stinnesbeck et al, 2017, and this volume) is the 110° angled notch on the mandibular ramus. Stinnesbeck et al (this volume) state that we (Schubert et al, 2020) argue the angle of the mandibular ramus was removed (broken off) by humans. We actually did not claim that humans broke off the angle of the dentary, but we did note that it was broken, and subsequently modified.…”

“…The posterior ¼ of the specimen, beginning along the caudal edge of the m3 displays a different taphonomic history. In contrast to the anterior ¾, this posterior portion exhibits some intact and uncorroded bone surfaces that preserve predepositional evidence of human modification in the form of fine striations interpreted to be cut marks (Stinnesbeck et al, 2018), and polishing on cortical and trabecular bone (Schubert et al, 2020). The better preservation of the posterior section may reflect the original in situ position of the specimen, where this portion appears to have been buried in sediment (Stinnesbeck et al, 2017, Fig.…”

“…Next, it is important to emphasize that P. tajacu dentaries express significant morphological and size variation. Schubert et al (2020) depict some of this variation in tables and supplementary data, as well as Fig. 1.…”