4.1 Article

THE MOST COMPLETE KNOWN NEOGENE GLYPTODONTIDAE (MAMMALIA, XENARTHRA, CINGULATA) FROM NORTHERN SOUTH AMERICA: TAXONOMIC, PALEOBIOGEOGRAPHIC, AND PHYLOGENETIC IMPLICATIONS

Journal

JOURNAL OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 696-708

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2013.726677

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Collection Study Grant (AMNH, U.S.A.)
  2. Ernst Mayr Travel Grant in Animal Systematic (MCZ, U.S.A.)
  3. [PICTO-UNNE (2007-00164)]
  4. [PICT 1285/2008]
  5. [PI002-11]
  6. [GEO09-08(2011)-[BPIN 0043000150000]]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The knowledge of northern South American Glyptodontidae (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Cingulata) is very scarce compared with that of southern South American taxa, which have been systematically studied since the 19th century. Recently, the northern taxa (originally assigned to the Glyptodontidae Propalaehoplophorinae Asterostemma and Propalaehoplophorus) have been reinterpreted as basal Glyptodontinae, belonging to the new genus Boreostemma. In this contribution, we present and describe the most complete Neogene Glyptodontidae from northern South America (middle Miocene of the Honda Group, La Venta, Colombia), and its main taxonomic, paleobiogeographic, and phylogenetic implications. This new material expands the morphological characterization of B. acostae and corroborates differences compared with Glyptodontidae from Miocene southern South America. A cladistic analysis corroborates the monophyly of the Glyptodontinae, that B. acostae and B. venezolensis being the sister group of the remaining taxa of Glyptodontinae. The traditionally recognized genera (e.g., Glyptodon and Glyptotherium) constitute natural groups. Whereas the Miocene seems to represent a diversification period for Glyptodontidae in southern South America, the recorded taxa in northern South America are restricted with certainty only to the Glyptodontinae Boreostemma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available