3.9 Article

Juvenile morphology: A clue to the origins of the most mysterious of mysticetes?

期刊

NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 257-261

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00114-013-1012-y

关键词

Cetacea; Mysticeti; Baleen whale; Caperea; Pygmy right whale; Evolution

资金

  1. Geoscience Society of New Zealand
  2. Systematics Association/Linnean Society of London
  3. Scottish Association for Marine Science
  4. Paleontological Society
  5. University of Otago
  6. Otago Museum Linnaeus Taxonomy Fellowship
  7. Cetacean Society International (CSI)
  8. American Museum of Natural History (Lerner Gray Fund for Marine Research)
  9. Society for Marine Mammalogy
  10. Smithsonian Institution
  11. University of Otago-Geology PBRF funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The origin of the pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata) has long been one of the most vexing conundrums of marine mammal evolution. The extremely disparate skeletal structure of Caperea and a patchy fossil record have left morphology and molecules at odds: whereas most morphological analyses ally Caperea with right whales (Balaenidae), most molecular studies instead suggest a close relationship with rorquals (Balaenopteridae) and grey whales (Eschrichtiidae). The morphological evidence supporting a Caperea-balaenid clade consists of several shared features of the skull and mandible, as traditionally observed in adult individuals. Here, we show that at least two of these features, the ascending process of the maxilla and the coronoid process, arise from substantially different precursors early during ontogeny and therefore likely do not represent genuine synapomorphies. Both of these juvenile morphologies have adult counterparts in the fossil record, thus indicating that the ontogenetic variation in the living species may be a genuine reflection of differing ancestral states. This new evidence contradicts previous morphological hypotheses on the origins of Caperea and may help to reconcile morphological and molecular evidence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据