The systematics of the Cervidae: a total evidence approach

Abstract

Systematic relationships of cervids have been controversial for decades. Despite new input from molecular systematics, consensus could only be partially reached. The initial, gross (sub) classification based on morphology and comparative anatomy was mostly supported by molecular data. The rich fossil record of cervids has never been extensively tested in phylogenetic frameworks concerning potential systematic relationships of fossil cervids to extant cervids. The aim of this work was to investigate the systematic relationships of extant and fossil cervids using molecular and morphological characters and make implications about their evolutionary history based on the phylogenetic reconstructions. To achieve these objectives, molecular data were compiled consisting of five nuclear markers and the complete mitochondrial genome of 50 extant and one fossil cervids. Several analyses using different data partitions, taxon sampling, partitioning schemes, and optimality criteria were undertaken. In addition, the most extensive morphological character matrix for such a broad cervid taxon sampling was compiled including 168 cranial and dental characters of 41 extant and 29 fossil cervids. The morphological and molecular data were analysed in a combined approach and other comprehensive phylogenetic reconstructions. The results showed that most Miocene cervids were more closely related to each other than to any other cervids. They were often positioned between the outgroup and all other cervids or as the sister taxon to Muntiacini. Two Miocene cervids were frequently placed within Muntiacini. Plio-and Pleistocene cervids could often be affiliated to Cervini, Odocoileini or Capreolini. The phylogenetic analyses provide new insights into the evolutionary history of cervids. Several fossil cervids could be successfully related to living representatives, confirming previously assumed affiliations based on comparative morphology and introducing new hypotheses. New systematic relationships were observed, some uncertainties persisted and resolving systematics within certain taxa remained challenging.

A new viewpoint on antlers reveals the evolutionary history of deer (Cervidae, Mammalia)

“…Inf. 8 shows the results of the reconstruction of ancestral character states, from the fixed topology of Heckeberg 12 , of the respective elements (tines, beams, and processes) based on the homology determined in this study. Figure 7 shows the reconstructed ancestral states (depicted as silhouettes) at the nodes and the evolutionary history of the antlers.…”

“…Panolia eldii has a different structured antler to Rucervus. Eld's deer belongs to Rucervus 35,54 , but all recent molecular phylogenetic topology studies [8][9][10][11][12] show that the position of this species is not in the same clade Figure 6. (A-Q) Typical forms of antlers of the species or genus with more than two-pointed antlers and the diagrams representing the branching structure (see the legend of Fig.…”

“…After determining the homology of tines, we reconstructed the ancestral states of all tines, treating them as characters. The reconstruction was performed using the fixed topology of the most recent molecular phylogenetic tree, the Bayesian inference analyses of the combined molecular data set by Heckeberg 12 .…”

“…Hydrophotes intermis, which is known to have no antlers, was also included in the samples to ensure that it had none. Species names are based on Wilson and Reeder 54 , except for Eld's deer, which was revealed to belong to the different clade from Rucervus duvaucelii and R. schoburgki by multiple molecular phylogenic studies [8][9][10][11][12] . Therefore, we used Panolia 8,55 for the genus containing Eld's deer in this study.…”

Population dynamics and range shifts of moose (Alces alces) during the Late Quaternary

“…DNA sequences of 137 modern A. alces were retrieved from GenBank and added to the analyses (Table S5). Roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus ) and Chinese water deer ( Hydropotes inermis ) were used as outgroups based on phylogenetic reconstructions identifying these species as the closest living relatives of moose, as well as the more distantly related reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ; Agnarsson & May‐Collado, 2008; Gilbert, Ropiquet, & Hassanin, 2006; Heckeberg, 2020).…”