Nimravids, Barbourofelids And Other Feliformia Related Questions

[Rait]

Hi guys. I'm back after more than 14 months and with more questions.

If there is a paleontologist on board, I can't ask for any better. If not, then please redirect me to sources where I can find the answers for my queries.

I seek to ask general paleobiology information about Nimravids and Barbourofelids right now. I have researched the internet about the origin of Nimravids and I get contradictory results. Whereas most sources claim that this ancient group originated in North America, there is THIS ARTICLE stating that the family most probably originated in Europe.

The same site (bioone.org) claims in THIS ARTICLE that the oldest nimravid fossils have been discovered in Thailand (Asia). THIS ARTICLE from another weisite (researchgate) also chants the same claim that the oldest Nimravid fossils belong to Thailand. I don't know if either of these articles is a spin of the other one

Contrary to all this, wikipedia implies that this family originated in North America.

Any guidance?

Edited January 5, 2015 by Rait

[Auspex]

One thing to consider when pondering the apparent temporal discrepancy is that the location of oldest found does not necessarily indicate the origin of a family. Migration across Beringia went both ways.

[Rait]

Lots of different types of mammals did migrate to and from Asia/North America through the dried up Bering Strait, that is right. But the oldest dated fossils still imply the exact origin or the near-vicinity of the origin of a species.

I mean ... if you find the oldest (both physiologically and temporally) fossils of any animal in a location, where else would you think it had originated? Eritherium and Moeritherium were discovered in Africa so we attribute the origin of elephants to Africa. Hyracotherium was discovered in North America, so we assign its place of origination to North America although the fossils of prehistoric horses stop showing up abruptly after the genus presumably migrated to Asia after the Bering Strait dried up. Same goes for Eotragus, Eoraptor, Juramaia and Eomaia and so many other first-of-their-kind progenitors. We attribute their origin to the locality where their oldest fossils were discovered.

Well, I don't intend to start up an argument about it here. I just seek some source of up-to-date information because apparently wikipedia and other online encyclopedias are far inferior in their quality of information than what would normally be expected of them

[piranha]

On 1/5/2015 at 4:35 AM, Rait said:

...The same site (bioone.org) claims in THIS ARTICLE that the oldest nimravid fossils have been discovered in Thailand (Asia). THIS ARTICLE from another weisite (researchgate) also chants the same claim that the oldest Nimravid fossils belong to Thailand. I don't know if either of these articles is a spin of the other one...

 

 

Check the title and authors more carefully, the papers are the same. Wikipedia gets a bad rap, but they do a remarkably good job overall.

 

Professional peer-reviewed papers are always the best source of reliable information.

 

This is the paper that erected Barbourofelis as a new genus:

 

Schultz, C.B., Schultz, M.R., & Martin, L.D. (1970)

A new tribe of saber-toothed cats (Barbourofelini) from the Pliocene of North America.

University of Nebraska State Museum Bulletin, 9:1-31

 

 

 

[piranha]

On 1/5/2015 at 4:35 AM, Rait said:

...I have researched the internet about the origin of Nimravids and I get contradictory results. Whereas most sources claim that this ancient group originated in North America, there is THIS ARTICLE stating that the family most probably originated in Europe...

 

 

Sorry to point out another discrepancy, but you really should verify that by carefully reading your own cited paper. In fact, that paper doesn't make that statement at all. Quote 1 from that paper corroborates Martin 1989; that nimravids appeared simultaneously in North America and Eurasia. Quote 2 clearly states the early Oligocene is the oldest record of nimravids in Europe.

 

(1) "The Nimravidae are a group of ~5-80 kg, catlike hypercarnivores from the late Eocene to late Miocene of Eurasia and North America."

(2) "The European record of nimravids begins with early Oligocene fossils from Soumailles (MP21, immediately following the Grande Coupure), and extends to the later Oligocene levels of Garouillas (MP25) and Carascosa (MP 25), an interval from; 32–33 to ;27–29 Ma (Legendre and Bachelet, 1993; Lévêque, 1993)."

 

Joeckel, R.M., Peigné, S., Hunt, R.M., & Skolnick, R. I. (2003)

The auditory region and nasal cavity of Oligocene Nimravidae (Mammalia: Carnivora).

Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 22(4):830-847

 

 

"Nimravids appeared simultaneously in the late Eocene of North America and Eurasia. This suggests that they had an early Holarctic distribution."

 

Martin, L.D. (1989)

Fossil history of the terrestrial Carnivora.

In: Gittleman, J.L. (ed.)

Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution.

Cornell University Press, 644 pp.

 

 

 

[siteseer]

The geographic origin of nimravids remains unclear. More recently, Rose (2006:p.132) still stated that they appeared in the Late Eocene of North America and Eurasia. He adds that the earliest known forms (Dinictis, Hoplophoneus) were already sabertoothed with other specializations, indicating a more generalized ancestor (and transitional forms) earlier in the Eocene. The relationship of the group to other mammals is also unclear (some have concluded a close link to cats while at least one study sees them actually closer to the dog family).

Rose, K.D. 2006.

The Beginning of the Age of Mammals. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.

pirahna wrote:

"Nimravids appeared simultaneously in the late Eocene of North America and Eurasia. This suggests that they had an early Holarctic distribution."

Martin, L.D. (1989)

Fossil history of the terrestrial Carnivora.

In: Gittleman, J.L. (ed.)

Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution.

Cornell University Press, 644 pp.

[Rait]

My bad.

Yes I didn't give much attention to detailed citations of the articles (writer names and such) because I only include the website name in my references, not the writer of the article. The credibility of the website stands for the credibility of the authors who wrote an article as they are peer-reviewed. It might be a bad habit in researching, but it saves time when you only have to cite the direct sources, not the indirect sources.

Quote 1 from that paper corroborates Martin 1989; that nimravids appeared simultaneously in North America and Eurasia. Quote 2 clearly states the early Oligocene is the oldest record of nimravids in Europe itself.

That is what I was mentioning. That there is a discrepancy about the origin of Nimravids on wikipedia (and wiki spins) and other sites. For example, while www.prehistoric-wildlife.com does not clearly state that North America is the place of origin of Nimravids, but it does imply that the group would have originated in North America under the topics of Dinictis, Hoplophoneus and Nimravus. Wikipedia clearly states that they probably originated in N.A.

Wiley Online library states in THIS ARTICLE:

The first part of this work presents the systematic revision of several European taxa (Nimravus intermedius, Dinailurictis bonali and Quercylurus major) and also includes the description of new material from the Early Oligocene of western Europe.

Unfortunately they require $$$ to read the full article (the quote is from the abstract) so I can't read it or make any logical deductions

For a book aimed at general public, about paleontology and evolution, which region is a "safe choice" to mention as the origination place of Nimravids?

[Auspex]

In his book "The Eternal Frontier" (2001), Tim Flannery refers to the Nimravids as "creatures from Asia". He cites no support for the statement, as the section is more concerned with their extinction and lack (in N. Am.) of analogous successors.

[Rait]

Could it be due to THIS ARTICLE?

It states that the oldest fossils so far have been unearthed in Thailand. But ... the discrepancy here is that the fossils unearthed are somewhat more advanced than the fossils discovered in Europe which belong to a later age.

[Auspex]

Again, "oldest found" is just that, and should not be equated with "earlier ancestor".

[piranha]

On 1/6/2015 at 0:00 AM, Rait said:

...Wiley Online library states in THIS ARTICLE:

The first part of this work presents the systematic revision of several European taxa (Nimravus intermedius, Dinailurictis bonali and Quercylurus major) and also includes the description of new material from the Early Oligocene of western Europe.

Unfortunately they require $$$ to read the full article (the quote is from the abstract) so I can't read it or make any logical deductions...

 

 

Don't get discouraged by pay per view papers, most of the time the author is more than happy to share their work with fellow researchers. In this case, a quick visit to Stéphane Peigné's website, shows all of his papers are available by request. If all else fails, make an inquiry at TFF, there are many people here that are always happy to assist.

 

LINK 1

LINK 2

 

 

 

[Rait]

Woohoo!

Thanks Piranha. I'm all over that place right now

p.s. where do you guys come up with such cool resources as that?

[Auspex]

...where do you guys come up with such cool resources as that?

This is just one of Piranha's super powers.

[siteseer]

Your examples (Moeritherium, Hyracotherium) are not comparable to early nimravids (Dinictis, Hoplophoneus) in the attempt to narrow down the geographic origin of the family because Moeritherium and Hyracotherium can be seen as primitive genera - subgroups of families near the base of the radiation of their groups. Hyracotherium looked much like the tapir and rhino of its day (the skeleton and probably in life) because they descended from a common ancestral group (likely in the last couple of million years of the Paleocene) and still share many anatomical characters. Other early ungulates (many but not all hoofed mammal groups) would have looked like them to some degree in being small bodied, quadrupedal, and with 4-5 toed feet.

The earliest known nimravids can be seen as bearing many derived features (elongated canines, retractile claws,etc) - adaptations acquired over time and indicating at least a few million years between Dinictis or Hoplophoneus and their common ancestor which also may or may not have been the "Hyracotherium" of their group. Consider if the oldest known horse was Mesohippus which appeared in the Late Eocene and survived into the Early Miocene (similar to Dinictis and Hoplophoneus, which also appeared in the Late Eocene surviving to the end of the Oligocene). Based on that, we might conclude that horses evolved in North America for sure because Mesohippus is known only from that continent. However, a mammal researcher would leave open the possibility that more primitive horses could be in the ground somewhere in part because Mesohippus had three toes on its feet and the earliest horse might be expected to bear at least four and perhaps five toes which appears to be the ancestral condition for many mammal groups that appeared after the K/T extinctions. I don't know a lot about horses so there are probably several other features in the skeleton of Mesohippus that would appear derived to a mammal specialist.

I hope that helps but maybe a mammalogist would explain it better. I've been told my work emails are too long (yeah, but then the recipient isn't getting all the necessary info).

Lots of different types of mammals did migrate to and from Asia/North America through the dried up Bering Strait, that is right. But the oldest dated fossils still imply the exact origin or the near-vicinity of the origin of a species.

I mean ... if you find the oldest (both physiologically and temporally) fossils of any animal in a location, where else would you think it had originated? Eritherium and Moeritherium were discovered in Africa so we attribute the origin of elephants to Africa. Hyracotherium was discovered in North America, so we assign its place of origination to North America although the fossils of prehistoric horses stop showing up abruptly after the genus presumably migrated to Asia after the Bering Strait dried up. Same goes for Eotragus, Eoraptor, Juramaia and Eomaia and so many other first-of-their-kind progenitors. We attribute their origin to the locality where their oldest fossils were discovered.

Well, I don't intend to start up an argument about it here. I just seek some source of up-to-date information because apparently wikipedia and other online encyclopedias are far inferior in their quality of information than what would normally be expected of them

[Rait]

Well. You are right.

Although the older couple of genuses are physiologically more basal than the latter ones (aren't they Eofelis and Nimravus instead of Hoplophoneus?), but yes, there are still some derived features even in the most primitive ones of them. So you have a point. Until the discovery of the most basal (physiologically) member(s) of the family, it will be too early to say where the group originated.

There could still be some limitations to the principle, but all in all I cannot disagree with you. For the sake of the book, I am going with the Asian hypothesis. In case of any challenging comments from learned readers, I can at least hide behind Monsters We Met assumption Which reminds me, I downloaded episode 1 last night. It's time to start watching that

Edited January 7, 2015 by Rait

[FossilDAWG]

You wrote:

"Yes I didn't give much attention to detailed citations of the articles (writer names and such) because I only include the website name in my references, not the writer of the article. The credibility of the website stands for the credibility of the authors who wrote an article as they are peer-reviewed. It might be a bad habit in researching, but it saves time when you only have to cite the direct sources, not the indirect sources."

If you are writing a book, this is an incredibly bad habit which will seriously undermine the credibility of your work. You must reference the actual article by author and year, not some website. You have already seen that you became confused and misinterpreted the published literature because you failed to recognize that the same article was linked on different websites. In this case, ResearchGate is a "social media" for scientists, where people often include links to their papers. It is not a research journal, and it does not publish anything itself or undertake any peer review. I know what I'm talking about as I have an account on ResearchGate and have links to about 20 papers there, for the convenience of people who want to read/download my papers. Every single one of those papers were published in some scientific journal which was responsible for the peer review and editing; ResearchGate did none of that, just as Facebook does not photoshop your "selfies" to make you look better.

If you make a mistake in your book like the one you made here, misquoting and misunderstanding references because you thought they were different articles because you linked to them through different websites all your work will be for nothing, because no-one will trust your scholarship. I hope I am not sounding too harsh, but it's better someone tells you this now while you can still easily correct your "bad habit".

Another point, trivial perhaps yet important if you wish to come across as credible, is that the plural of "genus" is "genera", not "genuses".

I wish you success in your endeavor. As Piranha said, there are people here in the Fossil Forum who are willing to help (within reason) and find your project interesting.

Don

[siteseer]

No one is going to fault you for saying that nimravid origins are unclear. You can cite real technical articles and books by people who write technical articles for back-up on that. As Don notes, you will be harshly criticized for going out on a limb because of a website. My advice to anyone is forget about websites. Wikipedia is great to find episode guides to old TV shows but it can be hit-or-miss for inquiries into the truly ancient past. I wouldn't go there to answer a question as technical as the origin of nimravids. You should email someone like Donald Prothero or Christine Janis. I've tried emailing a number of paleontologists and most have written back and answered my questions and even sent me an article or two (even reprints from overseas).

Well. You are right.

Although the older couple of genuses are physiologically more basal than the latter ones (aren't they Eofelis and Nimravus instead of Hoplophoneus?), but yes, there are still some derived features even in the most primitive ones of them. So you have a point. Until the discovery of the most basal (physiologically) member(s) of the family, it will be too early to say where the group originated.

There could still be some limitations to the principle, but all in all I cannot disagree with you. For the sake of the book, I am going with the Asian hypothesis. In case of any challenging comments from learned readers, I can at least hide behind Monsters We Met assumption Which reminds me, I downloaded episode 1 last night. It's time to start watching that

[Rait]

You wrote:

"Yes I didn't give much attention to detailed citations of the articles (writer names and such) because I only include the website name in my references, not the writer of the article. The credibility of the website stands for the credibility of the authors who wrote an article as they are peer-reviewed. It might be a bad habit in researching, but it saves time when you only have to cite the direct sources, not the indirect sources."

If you are writing a book, this is an incredibly bad habit which will seriously undermine the credibility of your work. You must reference the actual article by author and year, not some website. You have already seen that you became confused and misinterpreted the published literature because you failed to recognize that the same article was linked on different websites. In this case, ResearchGate is a "social media" for scientists, where people often include links to their papers. It is not a research journal, and it does not publish anything itself or undertake any peer review. I know what I'm talking about as I have an account on ResearchGate and have links to about 20 papers there, for the convenience of people who want to read/download my papers. Every single one of those papers were published in some scientific journal which was responsible for the peer review and editing; ResearchGate did none of that, just as Facebook does not photoshop your "selfies" to make you look better.

If you make a mistake in your book like the one you made here, misquoting and misunderstanding references because you thought they were different articles because you linked to them through different websites all your work will be for nothing, because no-one will trust your scholarship. I hope I am not sounding too harsh, but it's better someone tells you this now while you can still easily correct your "bad habit".

Another point, trivial perhaps yet important if you wish to come across as credible, is that the plural of "genus" is "genera", not "genuses".

I wish you success in your endeavor. As Piranha said, there are people here in the Fossil Forum who are willing to help (within reason) and find your project interesting.

Don

It is quite embarrassing to admit, but yes, you are right. I think I will have to review all my research so far, starting from prokaryotes and eukaryotes, down to ediacara fauna, to jellyfish, bivalves and sea urchins to trilobites to primitive agnathans to placoderms to modern sharks to bony fishes to transition from fish to amphibians to primitive amphibians to lepospondyls and temnospondyls to transition of amphibians into reptiles to ... aaaaaaargh I feel like shooting myself in the head. 2 years of researching, compling and trsnslating information down to the drain :(

"genuses" will do though because the book is in Urdu (native language of Pakistan) not English.

I wish I had the time to research every sub-topic in full detail but unfortunately I cannot. Considering the book starts with the creation of Earth and Moon during the Hadean period and ends with human evoution and the rather philosophical discussion of whether God drives the evolution or not, it is a huge huge pile of work. Usually I start researching every topic on wikipedia and then move over to the topic on about.com By this time I have a fairly credible introduction of the topic in my mind. I then research individual articles on the internet (peer reviewed original published content like those on nature, newscientist, sciencedaily, bioone etc) and get a detailed understanding of the subject. I then begin to compile the information I have read in my mind, and then translate it into Urdu and write it down with references to original content. I do have a list of the complete addresses of website (of course including the link to the original article) but *sigh* I haven't cited each and every bit of information down to its source. So what I have so far are articles with a list of detailed references at the end, but without the detail that which bit of information was taken from which source.

Considering the book is for general public and not for researchers or scientists, I think this won't be criticised much. What I AM worrying about, is what siteseer and FossilDAWG have pointed out about the error in my research methodology.

This is my first book btw. I have been writing science articles for local science mags for the past 7 years or so but it is my first go at a complete book. I am not a paleontologist, but a science journalist (with a thing for paleontology) and I excell at communicating scientific ideas and facts in easy-to-understand style.

@siteseer: I agree with most of what you wrote in your last post but I do not agree that wikipedia information can be trusted without doubt. I have seen wikipedia articles with contradictory information (one article stating one thing and the other stating against it). Also, mostly the information is outdated. For example, there is no mention on wikipedia that some of the oldest (temporally) fossils have been excavated from Thailand. Also sometimes there is a major difference between the facts presented on wikipedia and the facts provided by other science-related websites. I think wiki gives you a good headstart on a topic, but you shouldn't rely solely on it. While the general theme of the article is usually correct, there are several errors specifics are concerned.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Rait

[Auspex]

You make me wish I could read Urdu; this sounds like it will be a fascinating book!

[Rait]

Aww. I will post the more philosophical chapters (is there a principle behind the course of evolution? is man the final product of evolution? and a critique on Darwin's two principles) here on this forum in English. You peeps already know the factual part of evolution's journey.

The problem with philosophy is that there is no "right" or "wrong" in it. It is just an expression of one's mindset and point of view. Which means that philosophy is in it's nature, a very controversial subject. I will still write them though

I am a gnost. You can read one of my articles HERE

I'd keep bugging you guys for more links and questions about barbourofelids, true felidae, the divergence of modern cat lineages and so on

Edited January 8, 2015 by Rait

[Rait]

Stenoplesictidae anyone?

It's frustrating how we think the internet is full of information and when we begin to research something in moderate detail, suddenly we realise "internet knowledge base" is just a hoax

[FossilDAWG]

Are you using Google Scholar? If I search Stenoplesictidae in Google Scholar I get 13 links, about half of which are linked to pdfs of peer-reviewed papers I can upload. I don't know how that compares to the published literature on the Stenoplesictidae, but it's far better than nothing. I would not say the "internet knowledge base" is a hoax, though some search engines are vastly better than others at retrieving relevant information.

Don

[Rait]

The problem with articles published in peer reviewed science journals (regarding paleontology) is that they end up at explaining the morphology or taxonomy of one or more sample(s) in technical terms, which, while being very useful to the leading paleontologists and researchers, is of very little use to anyone like me who is concerned more about paleoecology than the detailed information about a part of a fossil and what techniques were used to study it's details

I hope you understand what I mean.

Do post the links to the pdfs btw. I would like to read them and squeeze out any useful information contained in them.

[Auspex]

...I hope you understand what I mean...

I understand exactly what you mean!

As a distinct discipline, Paleoecology has far to go in delving into the more obscure families.

[Rait]

Guys guys!

Can anybody help explain to me whether Dinofelis was a member of the machairodontinae (true saber-toothed cats) or not? I'm sort of stumped with it.

Wikipedia puts it in it's LIST OF MACHAIRODONTINAE. However ABOUT.COM DESCRIPTION lists as "false saber-toothed cat". Same goes for the ARTICLE ON PREHISTORIC-WILDLIFE.

These sources list it as a member of metailurini. Now again ... is this a sub-family of machairodontinae or a distinct sister family under felidae?