4.2 Article

Not a jaguar after all? Phylogenetic affinities and morphology of the Pleistocene felid Panthera gombaszoegensis

期刊

PAPERS IN PALAEONTOLOGY
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/spp2.1464

关键词

Panthera; morphometry; phylogeny; gombaszoegensis; jaguar

资金

  1. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique F.R.S.-FNRS [FC 36251, MIS F.4511.19]
  2. Fyssen Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes a new cranium of Panthera gombaszoegensis from Belgium and analyzes its morphological similarities and differences with other pantherine species. The assessment of the phylogenetic placement of P. gombaszoegensis suggests a closer relationship to the tiger, simplifying the biogeographic history of pantherines.
Panthera gombaszoegensis is a fossil pantherine from the Pleistocene of Eurasia. It has been considered to be the closest ancestor the jaguar (Panthera onca) due to dental similarities, and has even sometimes been considered to be a subspecies of jaguar. However, our knowledge of this taxon is limited by the scarcity of cranial remains, which has made it difficult to properly assess the phylogenetic affinities and possible ecological role of this taxon. Here, we describe a new cranium of P. gombaszoegensis from Belgium, and present a morphometric analysis of the cranium and dentition of extinct and extant pantherines. Whereas the lower dentition of P. gombaszoegensis is similar to that of P. onca, similarities were not recovered in other parts of the skull. Some cranial traits of P. gombaszoegensis resemble those of other pantherines, especially larger species such as the tiger (P. tigris), while some similarities to taxa such as tiger (P. tigris), lion (P. leo) and leopard (P. pardus) in the skull of P. gombaszoegensis suggest a diet adapted to a wide prey spectrum. The first ever assessment of the phylogenetic placement of P. gombaszoegensis places this taxon closer to P. tigris than to P. onca, which considerably simplifies the biogeographic history of pantherines.

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

4.2
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