4.2 Article

Comparison of Miocene to early Pleistocene-aged Castor californicus (Rodentia: Castoridae) to extant beavers and implications for the evolution of Castor in North America

Journal

PALAEONTOLOGIA ELECTRONICA
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

COQUINA PRESS
DOI: 10.26879/1284

Keywords

morphology; geometric morphometrics; chronospecies; semi-aquatic; Castoridae

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the morphological differences between the Miocene to early Pleistocene-aged beaver fossils (C. californicus) and extant North American beavers (C. canadensis). The results show morphological similarities between the two species, suggesting that they may represent the same species undergoing changes over time.
The beaver, genus Castor, is represented in North America today by Castor canadensis and in Eurasia by C. fiber. Historically, the fossil Miocene to early Pleistocene-aged North American beaver C. californicus has been considered a distinct species from C. canadensis due to its larger size. In this study, we test the hypothesis that the morphology of Miocene to early Pleistocene-aged fossils of C. californicus differs from that of the extant C. canadensis. Specimens of fossil and extant Castor were compared using 2D geometric morphometrics of skull and dentary material and linear measurements of postcranial material to analyze morphological differences between species and determine whether C. californicus fits within the range of intraspecific variation seen in C. canadensis. Results show that C. canadensis is highly variable in both skull and postcranial morphology, and C. californicus falls largely within the range of variation seen within the extant species. The morphological similarities between the two species suggest that they can be treated as ecological analogs and may represent change in a single species through time, although a rigorous evaluation of whether they are conspecific will require more data.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available