Hyopsodontids: Little Slinkers of the Palaeogene

The oft-repeated quote about mammalian palaeontology is that it tends to be focused on "the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth". This is primarily the result of pragmatic constraints: because they are much harder than the other bones of the mammalian skeleton, teeth are much more likely to be preserved in the fossil record. There are a great many fossil mammals for which the teeth remain pretty much the only part of the animal known. However, there is no question that this focus tends to limit our understanding of mammalian evolution. On the one hand, the complex morphology of many mammalian teeth means that they provide a wealth of characters for analysis. On the other, the morphology of teeth is heavily influenced by their bearer's diet and lifestyle, meaning that phylogenetically informative features are probably outweighed by the products of ecological convergence.

Reconstruction of Hyopsodus from Savage & Long (1978), via here.

All of which is pretty important background to keep in mind for any discussion of the Hyopsodontidae, a group of small (mostly rat- or weasel-sized) mammals recognised from the Palaeogene, the early part (Palaeocene and Eocene epochs) of the Caenozoic era. Hyopsodontids are generally assigned to the 'Condylarthra', a group of mammals that has long been recognised as one of the classic examples of a 'wastebasket taxon'. Condylarths were originally united as primitive relatives of the ungulates, the hoofed mammals. However, the individual condylarth families themselves have not got much in common otherwise, and (particularly with the current acceptance that 'ungulates' are probably not a monophyletic group) it is hard to come up with a definition for 'condylarths' that amounts to much more than 'medium-sized, unspecialised Palaeogene placentals'.

The hyopsodontids have been recognised as one of the longest-lived groups of 'condylarths', with assigned members extending from close to the start of the Palaeocene right up to near the end of the Eocene. Here again, though, we come up against the question of definition. The majority of taxa that have been aligned with the hyopsodontids are among those known only from teeth. Features of the hyopsodontid dentition include fairly simple incisors and premolars, small canines, and molars that are more or less bunodont (that is, the cusps are rounded or conical and clearly separate from each other rather than being connected by lophs). The problem is that these are all primitive, unspecialised features. Hyopsodontids are therefore defined more by their lack of alternate specialisations than anything positive, making them something of a wastebasket within a wastebasket.

Until recently, the only hyopsodontid known from much in the way of postcranial material was the type genus Hyopsodus, a number of species of which are known from an extended period of the Eocene. Indeed, Hyopsodus was one of the most abundant mammalian genera of its time, accounting for over a quarter of mammalian remains in a number of deposits where it is found (Rose 2006). These remains combine to give a picture of Hyopsodus as a long, low-bodied animal that has been compared in its proportions to a dachshund, a weasel, or a prairie dog. Hyopsodus would have been a ground-hugging slinker of an animal, build for concealment rather than speed. Short claws on the forelegs may be consistent with a certain degree of digging ability, whether in search of buried tubers or to scrape shallow burrows. Overall, Hyopsodus was probably a generalist, able to make a living wherever it may find itself: the real rat of the Eocene.

It was only relatively recently that Penkrot et al. (2008) provided further descriptions of limb-bone material from two other genera associated with the hyopsodontids, Apheliscus and Haplomylus. And despite the dental similarities between these genera and Hyopsodus, their postcranial anatomy indicates a quite different animal. Though small, the apheliscines were relatively long-legged, speedy runners: sprinters rather than slinkers. Penkrot et al. interpreted the apheliscines as relatives of the modern elephant shrews of Africa; whether or not there was a valid phylogenetic connection, the two would have certainly been ecologically similar.

Both Hyopsodus and Apheliscus were included in the broad-scale analysis of early placental phylogeny by Halliday et al. (2017). The results of the analysis corroborate the implications of the postcranial anatomy: despite dental similarities, the 'hyopsodontids' in the broad sense are not a monophyletic group. Over a dozen other genera are known of candidate hyopsodontids, but so long as they are known only from dental characters their true position remains uncertain. Without postcranial data, it seems, we can't handle the tooth.

REFERENCES

Halliday, T. J. D., P. Upchurch & A. Goswami. 2017. Resolving the relationships of Paleocene placental mammals. Biological Reviews 92 (1): 521–550.

Penkrot, T. A., S. P. Zack, K. D. Rose & J. I. Bloch. 2008. Postcranial morphology of Apheliscus and Haplomylus (Condylarthra, Apheliscidae): evidence for a Paleocene Holarctic origin of Macroscelidea. In: Sargis, E. J., & M. Dagosto (eds) Mammalian Evolutionary Morphology: A Tribute to Frederick S. Szalay pp. 73–106. Springer.

Rose, K. D. 2006. The Beginning of the Age of Mammals. JHU Press.

Where Do You Put Your Camels?

A dromedary Camelus dromedarius dares you to say what you make of it. Copyright John O'Neill.

In any discussion of the conflicts that may exist between morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic analysis, hippos and whales are bound to come up sooner or later. The claim in the late 1990s that these are each other's closest living relatives (and hence, that whales are nested fairly deeply within the artiodactyls, or even-toed hoofed mammals) was greeted with amazement, incredulity and more than a little skepticism. The story even caught the interest of the general public through news stories like this one, meaning that many people who are otherwise unfamiliar with the trivia of mammalian phylogeny may have picked up this detail. Since then, the whale-hippo relationship has been tested, re-tested and examined again, using every data source available. But the insertion of the whales was not the only way that molecular data mixed up the artiodactyl family tree. There was also the question of where one put the camels.

Based on anatomical data, it had previously been generally agreed that camelids (including camels and llamas) were most closely related to the ruminants, the group including such artiodactyls such as cattle, deer or giraffes. Both camelids and ruminants regurgitate cud pellets from the stomach back to the mouth in order to break their food more efficiently*, and both camelids and ruminants have a stomach divided into chambers with food only travelling to the rear section of the stomach after it has been re-chewed. They do differ in that whereas ruminants have the stomach divided into four distinct chambers, camelids only possess three; the rear two chambers (the abomasum and omasum) are not clearly differentiated in camelids. They were also united by features of the dentition, such as the presence of distinctly crescent-shaped cusps on the rear teeth. This latter feature lead the camelid+ruminant grouping to commonly be referred to as the Selenodontia (the 'moon-teeth').

*Yes, giraffes do chew cud. Yes, the cud does travel all the way between the stomach and the mouth each time.

However, the advent of molecular analyses cast doubt on this long-accepted arrangement. Instead of supporting the expected Selenodontia clade, molecular analyses placed camelids as the sister group to all other artiodactyls, with the ruminants instead being sister to the whales+hippos clade (with a pigs+peccaries clade the next clade out). This implied that the shared features of camelids and ruminants had arisen convergently (or else all other artiodactyls had reverted to a state considered more plesiomorphic for the group as a whole). In support for such a proposition, one might point to the ecological similarities in play. Camelids and ruminants are more specialist browsers than the non-selenodont artiodactyls, which are commonly more omnivorous (pigs and peccaries) or even carnivorous (whales).

Alternative phylogenies of artiodactyls, based on morphological (left) and molecular (right) data, from Spaulding et al (2009).
However, even if one is willing to credit that the 'selenodont' characters may have been the result of similar dietary pressures, one must also consider the issue that there are a number of fossil artiodactyl groups with selenodont or quasi-selenodont features. Examples of these include the Protoceratidae, a North American group that has commonly made some sort of appearance in popular books on fossil animals due to the weird home arrangements of some species, and the semi-bipedal Anoplotherium. In an influential morphological study of artiodactyl relationships, Gentry & Hooker (1988) referred to the possibility that some of these groups might be members of the selenodont stem, sitting outside the exclusive camelid+ruminant clade. Obviously, if selenodonts were not monophyletic, fossil 'selenodonts' might be aligned to either camelids or ruminants, but they couldn't be connected to both. Most studies that posited selenodont polyphyly, however, looked at living taxa only and did not consider extinct groups.

The most detailed study that I've found so far that considers the relationship between data from fossil taxa and from molecular sources in artiodactyl phylogeny is that published by Spaulding et al. (2009). This combined analysis of both morphological and molecular data produced results that were largely concordant with the latter, generally supporting placement of camelids as the sister group to all other artiodactyls (it's worth noting, mind you, that the size of the molecular data set used was considerably larger than that for the morphology, and an analysis of their morphological data only resulted in selenodont monophyly). The various 'proto-selenodonts' were scattered to the stems of various Recent clades. Protoceratids, for instance, were associated with ruminants rather than with camelids*. There are still a number of groups that remain yet to be analysed, but they've made a start.

*Another result of their analysis that is not directly relevant to the selenodont question, but cannot go unremarked upon, is that their tree indicates that Andrewsarchus, a lead contender for the title of largest terrestrial mammalian carnivore ever, might some sort of giant entelodont. I don't know how much I should read into this—not all of Andrewsarchus' potential relatives were included in Spaulding et al.'s analysis—but that's the sort of result that one just wants to be true.

REFERENCES

Gentry, A. W., & J. J. Hooker. 1988. The phylogeny of the Artiodactyla. In: Benton, M. J. (ed.) The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods vol 2. Mammals pp. 235–272. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Spaulding, M., M. A. O’Leary & J. Gatesy. 2009. Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) among mammals: increased taxon sampling alters interpretations of key fossils and character evolution. PLoS ONE 4(9): e7062. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007062

Gazelles and their Kin

Female steenbuck Raphicerus campestris, copyright Yathin S. Krishnappa.

Ever since biblical times, gazelles have been a byword for a kind of watchful elegance, always on guard against unwanted advances. It is not difficult to see how such an analogy arose: on their native savannah, gazelles are indeed always on the alert, wary of the threat of predators and quick to respond to alarm. It is a habit that has served them for millions of years.

The Antilopini are an assemblage of about thirty species of mostly smaller antelope found in Africa and Asia*. The smallest are the dikdiks of the genus Madoqua which may be only a foot or so in height and weight just a few kilos; the tallest, the dibatag Ammodorcas clarkei, stands about 90 cm at the shoulder and weighs about 30 kilograms. They are mostly associated with arid or semi-arid habitats: savannahs, deserts, steppes and the like. Some species form sizeable herds; others live solitary lives.

*Before I go too much further, I should note that J. K. Revell over at his site Synapsida has written a number of posts about bovids (antelopes, cattle, etc.) over the the past few years that I heartily recommend. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't gotten to antilopins yet, so I should be safe on that front.

Female and male oribi Ourebia ourebi, copyright Bill Higham.

Modern researchers largely agree on dividing the Antilopini between four major lineages, recognised as subtribes. One contains a single species, the oribi Ourebia ourebi, a smaller species with short, straight horns found in eastern sub-Saharan Africa. The Raphicerina, including the dikdiks Madoqua, the steenbucks and grysbucks Raphicerus and the beira Dorcatragus megalotis, are similar small, short-horned species. The Raphicerina and oribi are solitary species with individuals maintaining exclusive territories (at least between members of the same sex). They advertise their territories through the use of defecation sites together with the marking of vegetation using scent glands in front of the eye. The Raphicerina are exclusively browsers, concentrating on higher-quality food sources; in contrast, the oribi is a grazer and consequently must occupy a larger territory than the other species. Females of Raphicerina and oribi are hornless; in most other Antilopini (with some exceptions noted below), horns are present in both sexes though the females' horns are shorter and more slender.

Przewalski's gazelles Procapra przewalskii, copyright Yilun Qiao.

The majority of the remaining Antilopini live in herds though males of most species will claim temporary territories during the breeding season as they attempt to gather harems of females. The central Asian gazelles of the genus Procapra are placed in their own subtribe; these are three pale, medium-sized species found on steppes and high-altitude grasslands between the Himalayan plateau and Mongolia. They have rear-swept horns that make them look a bit like a gazelle that is trying to pass itself as a goat. Procapra gazelles may not be immediately related within the Antilopini to the true gazelles in the largest of the four subtribes, the Antilopina. Until recently, most authors would have treated the great majority of the Antilopina species in the genus Gazella; however, questions about the monophyly of this genus in the broad sense have lead to the recognition of three separate genera of gazelles: Gazella sensu stricto, Nanger and Eudorcas. The Nanger species, which include the dama gazelle N. dama and Grant's gazelle N. granti, are relatively large gazelles with a conspicuous white rump that is absent in the other two genera. The genus Eudorcas includes perhaps the most familiar gazelle species, Thomson's gazelle E. thomsoni of Kenya and Tanzania, which forms much larger herds than other gazelle species.

Mhorr gazelles Nanger dama mhorr at Tierpark Hellabrunn in München, copyright Rufus46.

The remaining living Antilopina species are all placed in their own separate genera. The springbuck Antidorcas marsupialis of southern Africa also forms large herds that used to number in the tens of thousands before hunting and habitat loss reduced their population. Springbucks are best known, of course, for their habit of 'pronking', a mode of bounding with all four legs held stiff and landing simultaneously, most often seen when the animal is alarmed or at play. Pronking is not unique to springbucks (other gazelles do it too) but it is made particularly noticeable in this species by a crest of white hairs towards the rear of the back that is erected at the same time.

Springbuck Antidorcas marsupialis engaged in some pronking, copyright Hans Stieglitz.

In other species of Antilopina, only the males have horns. The gerenuk Litocranius walleri and dibatag Ammodorcas clarkei are two slender species found in eastern Africa that differ from other Antilopina in being browsers rather than grazers and maintaining permanent exclusive territories. Both these species habitually feed while standing erect on the hind legs, allowing them to browse at higher levels than they could otherwise; they are even able to walk about to a certain extent in this pose, albeit perhaps not in a manner that could be called graceful. Outside of Africa, the blackbuck Antilope cervicapra is found in grasslands and woodlands of the Indian subcontinent (there is also supposed to have been a small introduced population of them near Geraldton here in Western Australia, though it may have since been eradicated). Males of this species have long, spirally twisted horns; mature males are also the only 'blackbucks' that are actually black (at least dorsally) whereas females and young males are light brown.

Pair of juvenile dibatags Ammodorcas clarkei at a rescue centre, copyright F. Wilhelmi.

Perhaps the most distinctive member of the Antilopina, however, is the saiga Saiga tatarica. This is the only species that is known to never be territorial, forming large herds in its native habitat of the central Asian steppes (technically, the social habits of the little-studied dibatag are largely unknown but it would not be unreasonable to presume that they are similar to those of the gerenuk). It is more robust than other Antilopina species; indeed, there was long uncertainty about whether saiga are more closely related to gazelle or goats. The nostrils of saiga are inflated to a hanging proboscis that is usually presumed to function as protection for the respiratory tissues from the dust of their near-desert habitat. However, there may also be a display function involved; during the mating season, the proboscis of males becomes engorged while scent glands in front of the eyes produce pungent secretions (so maybe the function of the proboscis is actually to somehow protect the saiga from its own stench). Unfortunately, the saiga (among other Antilopini species) is currently regarded as critically endangered, with only a fragment of its historical population surviving. There was a time when the saiga was thought to be something of a conservation success story: after being almost wiped out in the early 1900s, populations built up to about two million by the 1950s. But in the last few decades, the combined effects of factors such as habitat loss, disease and the demand for their horns from everyone's favourite country to turn the extermination of endangered species into a pointless investment bubble have caused numbers to crash back down to an estimated 50,000 or so (as relayed by Wikipedia).

Pair of saiga Saiga tatarica, copyright N. Singh.

Fossil species have been assigned to the genus Gazella from as far back as the Miocene though there may be grounds for debating how many of them are true Gazella. For instance, Bärmann (2014) commented on preliminary results of a phylogenetic analysis including the Pakistani Miocene species G. lydekkeri (from the well-studied Siwalik deposits) that suggested that it might be placed outside the Antilopina crown group. Other fossils of Antilopini inform us that the modern blackbuck is the sole survivor of a lineage of spiral-horned antelopes that was previously more widespread in Eurasia. The saiga was more widespread in the past as well, with either the modern or a closely related species known during the Pleistocene from more northerly parts of Siberia (at which point, presumably, there may have been saiga in the taiga) and even in northernmost North America. If they do disappear completely, it will be a sad end to a long history.

REFERENCES

Bärmann, E. V. 2014. The evolution of body size, horn shape and social behaviour in crown Antilopini—an ancestral character state analysis. Zitteliana B 32: 185–196.

Macdonald, D. (ed.) 1984. All the World's Animals: Hoofed Mammals. Torstar Books: New York.