DOCSLIB.ORG

Cave Bear Ecology and Interactions With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cave Bear Ecology and Interactions With CAVEBEAR ECOLOGYAND INTERACTIONSWITH PLEISTOCENE HUMANS MARYC. STINER, Department of Anthropology,Building 30, Universityof Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721, USA,email: [email protected] Abstract:Human ancestors (Homo spp.), cave bears(Ursus deningeri, U. spelaeus), andbrown bears (U. arctos) have coexisted in Eurasiafor at least one million years, andbear remains and Paleolithic artifacts frequently are found in the same caves. The prevalenceof cave bearbones in some sites is especiallystriking, as thesebears were exceptionallylarge relative to archaichumans. Do artifact-bearassociations in cave depositsindicate predation on cave bearsby earlyhuman hunters, or do they testify simply to earlyhumans' and cave bears'common interest in naturalshelters, occupied on different schedules?Answering these and other questions aboutthe circumstancesof human-cave bear associationsis made possible in partby expectations developedfrom research on modem bearecology, time-scaledfor paleontologicand archaeologic applications. Here I review availableknowledge on Paleolithichuman-bear relations with a special focus on cave bears(Middle Pleistocene U. deningeri)from YarimburgazCave, Turkey.Multiple lines of evidence show thatcave bearand human use of caves were temporallyindependent events; the apparentspatial associations between human artifacts andcave bearbones areexplained principally by slow sedimentationrates relative to the pace of biogenicaccumulation and bears' bed preparationhabits. Hibernation-linkedbehaviors and population characteristics of cave bears,based on osteometric,isotopic, and age andsex structureanalyses, indicate that they dependedheavily on seasonalfood supplies,which were rich in resistantplant materials and cryptic, gritty foods. Thereis little evidence of direct ecological interactionamong Pleistocene humans and cave bears. Ursus 11:41-58 Key words: brownbears, cave bears,Mediterranean, mortality, paleodiet, Pleistocene human-bear interactions, sex ratio,Ursus arctos, Ursusdeningeri, Ursus spelaeus Pleistocene sediments in Eurasiancaves often contain By way of anthropologicalbackground, the chronol- complex records of habitationby predatoryspecies. Of ogy of Paleolithic culturesbegins aroundthe Plio-Pleis- these, early humans (Homo spp.), wolves (Canis lupus), tocene boundary and lasts until the Holocene. The foxes (Vulpes spp.), spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), Paleolithic traditionallyis divided into 3 major cultural and bears (Ursus spp.) were especially prolific sources phases: the Lower,the Middle, andthe UpperPaleolithic. of bone refuse. Making sense of cave faunas is an inter- The hominid forms associatedwith these culturesvaried esting, but also challenging, enterprise,beginning with considerably,and there is no simple correspondencebe- the questions of how the assemblagesformed, what spe- tween cultural (behavioral) change and hominid mor- cies were active collectors and modifiers of bones, and phological (skeletal) change. Lower Paleolithicartifacts the extent to which sediment chemistryfavored skeletal are attributedto some of the late Australopithecinespe- preservation. These problemsfall in the methodological cies, which were confined to the African continent, as domainof vertebratetaphonomy, an areaof researchcon- well as to early variantsof the genus Homo, which by cerned with how bone assemblages become part of the 1.4-1.8 million years ago (MYA) spreadfrom Africa into paleontological and archaeologicalrecords. much of Eurasia. First appearingsome 250,000 years While clear answers about assemblage formationhis- ago, Middle Paleolithic artifactsare characterizedby in- tory seldom are easy to obtain, thereis a wealth of infor- novations in stone tool productiontechniques and arti- mation locked in cave sites about the ecology of early fact forms. They are attributedto archaichumans such humans and their relations with potential competitors, as Neandertalsin general (H. sapiens neanderthalensis) mainly of the order Carnivora. The story of human- as well as to earliest anatomicallymoder humans (H. bear interactionsis both importantand enigmatic. Con- sapiens sapiens) in the west Asian cave sites of Qafzeh verging patternsof omnivorywould seem reasonenough and Skhul (Bar-Yosef et al. 1986, Valladaset al. 1988, for Pleistocene humans and bears to have stayed out of Bar-Yosef 1989, Vandermeersch1989). The Upper Pa- each other'sway. Yet the remainsof cave bearsor brown leolithic, which began between 42,000 and 35,000 years bears are found in nearlyevery EurasianMiddle and Up- ago (dependingon region), is markedby spectacularra- per Paleolithic site with preserved bone-sometimes diations in materialculture over a relatively short time many bear bones, but more usually a few. In fact, bear span. Artifacts of all 3 periods commonly are found in remains turn up in Paleolithic cave sites more consis- open sites. Cave sites, usually in limestone solutioncavi- tently than the remains of almost any other large carni- ties, were periodically inhabitedduring the Middle and vore, at least prior to 20,000 years ago, when greater Upper Paleolithic culture periods only, and most of the interspecificexclusion among cave residentsis apparent archaeofaunalrecords of these periods come from caves (Gamble 1986, Stiner 1994). for the simple reasonthat cave sedimentsfavor bone pres- ervation. Paleolithic peoples probably were no more 42 Ursus 11:1999 bound to caves than bears, but both were at times at- Middle Pleistocene (U. etruscus) was relatively small- tractedby the prospectof easy shelter. bodied but evolved into largertypes by the Middle Pleis- Here I review availableknowledge on Pleistocene hu- tocene. This presentationconcerns 2 bears in particular, man-bear relations,as gleaned by archaeologicalinves- cave bears (U. deningeri, U. spelaeus, U. rossicus) and tigations of cave sites, with a special focus on cave bears brown bears (U. arctos and its most immediate ances- in southernEurope and western Asia. The rich litera- tors) (Kurten1976, Baryshnikov1998). Once prevalent ture on moder brown and black bears (U. americanus) throughoutEurasia, all cave bearswere extinctby roughly plays a key role in this kind of research. Specifically, 10,000 years ago (Baryshnikov1999), and most popula- wildlife data are used to build testable predictionsabout tions disappearedconsiderably earlier. Brownbears con- how bears may contributeto faunal assemblage forma- tinue to exist and even doubled their geographic range tion. The faunal patternsinside caves that can be ex- duringthe Late Pleistocene by colonizing the Americas, plained by modern bear behavior are played against as did humans not long thereafter. anthropologicalhypotheses about ancienthuman behav- Because recent humans and bears display strong at- ior. A variety of analytic techniques are marshaledfor tractions to meat as well as to energy-richplant foods, this kind of research,including osteometry, skeletal dam- theirevolutionary histories following biogeographiccon- age analysis, taxonomic and body part profiling, and tact must have affected one anotherto some extent. The mortalityand isotope analyses, to obtain rigorous,if in- ecological links between humansand bears may always direct,evidence aboutPleistocene cave bear(and human) have been relativelyweak, because both tend to be versa- ecology. For relatedpublications see Stiner(1994, 1998) tile, generalistforagers (sensu Foley 1984). These links and Stiner et al. (1996, 1998), and for information on were perennial, however, due to overlappingneeds for Pleistocene carnivore guilds in the MediterraneanBa- foraging territoryand, periodically,for shelter. sin, see Stiner (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994) and cita- tions therein. PLEISTOCENEHUMAN-BEAR INTERACTIONS:FACT AND FICTION HISTORYOF HOMINID-URSID There is no shortageof bear stories in anthropological COEXISTENCE andpopular literature. Most of them concern"cave men" Between 1.8 and 1.4 million years ago, populationsof (Neandertals)and cave bears. The original site for the a hominid known as Homo ergaster expandedfrom Af- Neandertalcave bear cult is DrachenlochCave in Swit- rica into Eurasia. Hominids' spreadacross southernAsia zerland, made famous by Bachler's radical interpreta- appearsto have been rapid (Klein 1989). Colonization tion of a faunaconsisting almost exclusively of bearbones of continental Europe and the colder regions of north- (Kurten 1976). The sediments of Drachenloch lacked central and eastern Asia by hominids took considerably artifactualmaterial, but allegedly preserveda stone crypt longer, but they certainly reached these regions before with as many as 7 cave bear skulls arrangedneatly in- 500,000 years ago. The first hominids to enter Eurasia side and, nearby,a smaller stone chest packed with bear were omnivores with a notable capacity for huntingver- long bones. Bachler's claim was refutedby Koby (1940) tebrateprey, a propertywhich may have been essential and in Kurten's (1976) highly entertainingbook, The to winter survival in northernhabitats (Foley In Press, Cave Bear Story (also Kurten 1958, 1971, 1973). Stiner In Press). Colonization of new continents put The cave bear cult is a engaging story, if only for the hominidsin contactwith diverse environmentsand novel early spiritualismit implies. The idea that archaic hu- floras and faunas. mans manipulatedbear remains in symbolic ways per- Hominids were late arrivalsto the predatoryguilds of sists, at least partlybecause bear bones frequentlyoccur Africa, where they first evolved, and hominid-camivore
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Morphometric Analyses of Cave Bear Mandibles (Carnivora, Ursidae)
    Revue de Paléobiologie, Genève (décembre 2018) 37 (2): 379-393 ISSN 0253-6730 Morphometric analyses of cave bear mandibles (Carnivora, Ursidae) Gennady F. BARYSHNIKOV1*, Andrei Yu. PUZACHENKO2 & Svetlana V. BARYSHNIKOVA1 1 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, 199034 Saint Petersburg, Russia 2 Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetnyi per. 29, 109017 Moscow, Russia * Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Morphometric variability of cave and brown bears and their ancestors (Ursus minimus and U. etruscus) is examined using multivariate statistics based on measurements of 679 mandibles from 90 localities in Northern Eurasia. The variability is dependent on sexual dimorphism in size: it is well seen in big cave bears (U. spelaeus, U. kanivetz = ingressus, U. kudarensis), whose males are nearly 25% larger than females. In the morphological space, we identified two main types of mandibles: the “arctoid” type [U. minimus, U. etruscus, U. arctos, U. rodei (?)], and the “spelaeoid” type (U. spelaeus spelaeus, U. s. eremus, U. kanivetz, U. kudarensis). The intermediate “deningeroid” type includes U. deningeri, U. savini, U. rossicus (males), and U. spelaeus ladinicus. An additional unit is formed by female sample of U. rossicus. The mandible bones are less informative for understanding of cave bear evolution, because in comparison to crania, they have a rather simple shape. Keywords Ursus, cave bears, morphometrics, variations, mandible, evolution, adaptation, Pleistocene. Résumé Analyse morphométrique de la mandibule chez les ours des cavernes. - La variabilité morphométrique des ours des cavernes, des ours bruns et de leurs ancêtres (Ursus minimus et U. etruscus) est étudiée à partir des mesures de 679 mandibules de 90 sites d’Eurasie du nord, à l’aide des méthodes d’analyses statistiques multivariées.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Viewing Archiving 300
    Bull. Soc. belge Géol., Paléont., Hydrol. T. 79 fasc. 2 pp. 167-174 Bruxelles 1970 Bull. Belg. Ver. Geol., Paleont., Hydrol. V. 79 deel 2 blz. 167-174 Brussel 1970 MAMMALS OF THE CRAG AND FOREST BED B. McW1LLIAMs SuMMARY. In the Red and Norwich Crags mastodonts gradually give way to the southern elephant, large caballine horses and deer of the Euctenoceros group become common. Large rodents are represented by Castor, Trogontherium and rarely Hystrix; small forms include species of Mimomys. Carnivores include hyaena, sabre-toothed cat, leopard, polecat, otter, bear, seal and walrus. The Cromer Forest Bed Series had steppe and forest forms of the southern elephant and the mastodont has been lost. Severa! species of giant deer become widespread and among the many rodents are a. number of voles which develop rootless cheek teeth. The mole is common. Warmth indicators include a monkey, and more commonly hippopotamus. Possible indicators of cold include glutton and musk ox. Rhinoceros is widespread, and it is a time of rapid evolution for the elk. Carnivores include hyaena, bear, glutton, polecat, marten, wold and seal. The interpretation of mammalian finds from is represented by bones which resemble the the Crags and Forest Bed is not an easy mole remains but are about twice their size. matter. A proportion of the remains have been derived from eatlier horizons, others are Order Primates discovered loose in modern coastal deposits, and early collectors often kept inadequate The order is represented at this period m records. Owing to the uncertain processes of England by a single record of Macaca sp., the fossilisation or inadequate collecting there are distal end of a teft humerus from a sandy many gaps in our knowledge of the mammal­ horizon of the Cromerian at West Runton, ian faunas of these times.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth Trajectories in the Cave Bear and Its Extant
    Fuchs et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2015) 15:239 DOI 10.1186/s12862-015-0521-z RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Growth trajectories in the cave bear and its extant relatives: an examination of ontogenetic patterns in phylogeny Manuela Fuchs, Madeleine Geiger*, Madlen Stange and Marcelo R. Sánchez-Villagra Abstract Background: The study of postnatal ontogeny can provide insights into evolution by offering an understanding of how growth trajectories have evolved resulting in adult morphological disparity. The Ursus lineage is a good subject for studying cranial and mandibular shape and size variation in relation to postnatal ontogeny and phylogeny because it is at the same time not diverse but the species exhibit different feeding ecologies. Cranial and mandibular shapes of Ursus arctos (brown bear), U. maritimus (polar bear), U. americanus (American black bear), and the extinct U. spelaeus (cave bear) were examined, using a three-dimensional geometric morphometric approach. Additionally, ontogenetic series of crania and mandibles of U. arctos and U. spelaeus ranging from newborns to senile age were sampled. Results: The distribution of specimens in morphospace allowed to distinguish species and age classes and the ontogenetic trajectories U. arctos and U. spelaeus were found to be more similar than expected by chance. Cranial shape changes during ontogeny are largely size related whereas the evolution of cranial shape disparity in this clade appears to be more influenced by dietary adaptation than by size and phylogeny. The different feeding ecologies are reflected in different cranial and mandibular shapes among species. Conclusions: The cranial and mandibular shape disparity in the Ursus lineage appears to be more influenced by adaptation to diet than by size or phylogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Panthera Leo Spelaea
    Quaternaire, 22, (2), 2011, p. 105-127 PLEISTOCENE PANTHERA LEO SPELAEA (GOLDFUSS 1810) REMAINS FROM THE BALVE CAVE (NW GERMANY) – A CAVE BEAR, HYENA DEN AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC HUMAN CAVE – AND REVIEW OF THE SAUERLAND KARST LION CAVE SITES n Cajus G. DIEDRICH 1 ABSTRACT Pleistocene remains of Panthera leo spelaea (Goldfuss 1810) from Balve Cave (Sauerland Karst, NW-Germany), one of the most famous Middle Palaeolithic Neandertalian cave sites in Europe, and also a hyena and cave bear den, belong to the most im- portant felid sites of the Sauerland Karst. The stratigraphy, macrofaunal assemblages and Palaeolithic stone artefacts range from the final Saalian (late Middle Pleistocene, Acheulean) over the Middle Palaeolithic (Micoquian/Mousterian), and to the final Palaeolithic (Magdalénien) of the Weichselian (Upper Pleistocene). Most lion bones from Balve Cave can be identified as early to middle Upper Pleistocene in age. From this cave, a relatively large amount of hyena remains, and many chewed, and punctured herbivorous and carnivorous bones, especially those of woolly rhinoceros, indicate periodic den use of Crocuta crocuta spelaea. In addition to those of the Balve Cave, nearly all lion remains in the Sauerland Karst caves were found in hyena den bone assemblages, except those described here material from the Keppler Cave cave bear den. Late Pleistocene spotted hyenas imported most probably Panthera leo spelaea body parts, or scavenged on lion carcasses in caves, a suggestion which is supported by comparisons with other cave sites in the Sauerland Karst. The complex taphonomic situation of lion remains in hyena den bone assemblages and cave bear dens seem to have resulted from antagonistic hyena-lion conflicts and cave bear hunting by lions in caves, in which all cases lions may sometimes have been killed and finally consumed by hyenas.
    [Show full text]
  • Cave Bears and Ancient DNA: a Mutually Beneficial Relationship
    Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 132 Cave bears and ancient DNA: a mutually beneficial relationship Axel Barlow 1, Michael Hofreiter 1 and Michael Knapp 2 Abstract For almost 30 years, cave bears and paleogenetic research have shared a mutually beneficial relation- ship. Due to the abundance and frequently good preservation of cave bear bones, they have often been the tissue of choice to develop and test molecular approaches aimed at recovering and sequencing DNA from ancient remains. Our understanding of cave bear biology has similarly profited from the molecular data produced through paleogenetic studies. DNA data has complemented morphologi- cal data to provide insights into the evolution and phylogeny of cave bears. Molecular population dynamic studies have helped develop hypotheses explaining the extinction of cave bears, and new genomic data is now promising to shed light on evolutionary and population genetic processes that could previously only be obtained from living species. Here we evaluate and review the role cave bears have played in the development of paleogenetic research as well as the role that paleogenetic research has had in understanding cave bear biology. We provide a perspective on where this mutually beneficial relationship is likely to take us in the near future. Zusammenfassung Seit fast 30 Jahren verbindet die Höhlenbären- und paläogenetische Forschung eine, für beide Seiten vorteilhafte, Beziehung. Aufgrund der Fülle und häufig guten Erhaltung von Höhlenbär-Knochen waren sie häufig das Material der Wahl, um molekulare Ansätze zur Extraktion und Sequenzierung von DNA aus Fossilien zu entwickeln und zu testen. Unser Verständnis der Biologie des Höhlen- bären hat in ähnlicher Weise von den molekularen Daten aus paläogenetischen Studien profitiert.
    [Show full text]
  • K = Kenyanthropus Platyops “Kenya Man” Discovered by Meave Leaky
    K = Kenyanthropus platyops “Kenya Man” Discovered by Meave Leaky and her team in 1998 west of Lake Turkana, Kenya, and described as a new genus dating back to the middle Pliocene, 3.5 MYA. A = Australopithecus africanus STS-5 “Mrs. Ples” The discovery of this skull in 1947 in South Africa of this virtually complete skull gave additional credence to the establishment of early Hominids. Dated at 2.5 MYA. H = Homo habilis KNM-ER 1813 Discovered in 1973 by Kamoya Kimeu in Koobi Fora, Kenya. Even though it is very small, it is considered to be an adult and is dated at 1.9 MYA. E = Homo erectus “Peking Man” Discovered in China in the 1920’s, this is based on the reconstruction by Sawyer and Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History. Dated at 400-500,000 YA. (2 parts) L = Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 in Ethiopia. Lucy, at 3.2 million years old has been considered the first human. This is now being challenged by the discovery of Kenyanthropus described by Leaky. (2 parts) TC = Australopithecus africanus “Taung child” Discovered in 1924 in Taung, South Africa by M. de Bruyn. Raymond Dart established it as a new genus and species. Dated at 2.3 MYA. (3 parts) G = Homo ergaster “Nariokotome or Turkana boy” KNM-WT 15000 Discovered in 1984 in Nariokotome, Kenya by Richard Leaky this is the first skull dated before 100,000 years that is complete enough to get accurate measurements to determine brain size. Dated at 1.6 MYA.
    [Show full text]
  • 299947 108 1964.Pdf
    SOCIETAS PRO FAUNA ET FLORA FE.NNICA SOCIETAS PRO FAUNA ET FLORA FENNICA ACTA ZOOLOGICA FENNICA 108 Bjom Kurten: The evolution of the Polar Bear, U rsus maritimus Phipps p- ) A. ~NA ET • .P A .fJl!N'NICA_ HELSINKI-HELSINGFORS 1964 ACTA ZOOLOGICA FENNICA 1-45 vide Acta Zoologica Fennica 45-50. 46-59 vide Acta Zoologica Fennica 60-93. 60. Alex. Luther: Untersuchungen an rhahdocoelen Turbellarien. IX. Zur Kenntnis einiger Typhloplaniden. X. "Ober Astrotorhynchus bifidus (M'Int). 42 S. (1950). 61. T. H. Jilrri: Die Kleinmarlinenbestiinde in ihren Beziehungen zu der Umwelt (Coregonus albula L.). 116 S. (1950). 62. Pontus Palmgren: Die Spinnenfauna Finnlands und Ostfennoskandiens. Ill. Xysticidae und Philodromidae. 43 S. (1950). 63. Sven Nordberg: Researches on the bird fauna of the marine zone in the Aland Archipelago. 62 pp. (1950). 64. Floriano Papil "Ober einige Typhloplaninen (Turbellaria neorhabdocoela). 20 S. (1951). 65. Einari Merikallio: On the numbers of land-birds in Finland. 16 pp. (1951). 66. K. 0. Donner: The visual acuity of some Passerine birds. 40 pp. (1951). 67. Lars von Haartman: Der Trauerfliegenschniipper. II. Populationsprobleme. 60S. (1951). 68. Erie Fabrieius: Zur Ethologie junger Anatiden. 178 S. (1951). 69. Tor G. Karling: Studien iiber Kalyptorhynchien (Turbellaria). IV. Einige Euka­ lyptorhynchia. 49 S. (1952). 70. L. Benick t: Pilzkiifer und Kliferpilze. Okologische und statistische Untersuchun­ gen. 250 S. (1952). 71. Bo-Jungar Wikgren: Osmotic regulation in some aquatic animals with special reference to the influence of temperature. 102 pp. (1953). 72. Wollram Noodt: Entromostracen aus dem Litoral und dem Kiistengrundwasser des Finnischen Meerbusens. 12 S. (1953). 73.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carnivore Remains from the Sima De Los Huesos Middle Pleistocene Site
    N. Garcia & The carnivore remains from the Sima de J. L. Arsuaga los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site Departamento de Paleontologia, (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain) Facultad de Ciencias Geologicas, U.A. de Paleoantropologia & Instituto de View metadata, citation and similar papersRemain ats ocore.ac.ukf carnivores from the Sima de los Huesos sitebrought representin to you gby a t COREleast Geologia Economica, Universidad 158 adult individuals of a primitive (i.e., not very speleoid) form of Ursus Complutense de Madrid, Ciudad provided by Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la... deningeri Von Reichenau 1906, have been recovered through the 1995 field Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain season. These new finds extend our knowledge of this group in the Sierra de Atapuerca Middle Pleistocene. Material previously classified as Cuoninae T. Torres indet. is now assigned to Canis lupus and a third metatarsal assigned in 1987 to Departamento de Ingenieria Geoldgica, Panthera cf. gombaszoegensis, is in our opinion only attributable to Panthera sp. The Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros family Mustelidae is added to the faunal list and includes Maites sp. and a de Minas, Universidad Politecnica smaller species. The presence of Panthera leo cf. fossilis, Lynxpardina spelaea and de Madrid, Rios Rosas 21, Fells silvestris, is confirmed. The presence of a not very speloid Ursus deningeri, 28003 Madrid, Spain together with the rest of the carnivore assemblage, points to a not very late Middle Pleistocene age, i.e., oxygen isotope stage 7 or older. Relative frequencies of skeletal elements for the bear and fox samples are without major biases. The age structure of the bear sample, based on dental wear stages, does not follow the typical hibernation mortality profile and resembles a cata­ strophic profile.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus Ursus in Eurasia: Dispersal Events and Stratigraphical Significance
    Riv. It. Paleont. Strat. v. 98 n,4 pp. 487-494 Marzo 7993 THE GENUS URSUS IN EURASIA: DISPERSAL EVENTS AND STRATIGRAPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE MARCO RUSTIONI* 6. PAUL MAZZA** Ke vuords: Urszs, PIio-Pleistocene. Eurasia. Riassunto. Sulla base dei risultati di precedenti studi condotti dagli stessi autori vengono riconosciuti cinque gruppi principali di orsi: Ursus gr. ninimus - thihtanus (orsi neri), Ursus gr. etuscus (orsi erruschi), Ursus gr. arctos (orsi bruni), Ursus gr, deningeri - spelaeus (orsi delle caverne) e Ursus gr. maitimus (orsi bianchi). Gli orsi neri sembrano essere scomparsi dall'Europa durante il Pliocene superiore, immigrarono nuovamente in Europa all'inizio del Pleistocene medio e scomparvero definitivamente dall'Europa all'inizio del Pleistocene superiore. Gli orsi etruschi sono presenti più o meno contemporaneamente nelle aree meridionali dell'Europa e dell'Asia nel corso del Pliocene superiore. La linea asiatica sembra scomparire alla fine di questo periodo, mentre il ceppo europeo soprawisse, dando origine, nel corso del Pleistocene inferiore, ai rappresentanti più evoluti. Gli orsi bruni si sono probabilmente originati in Asia. Questo gruppo si diffuse ampiamente nella regione oloartica differenziandòsi in un gran numero di varietà e presumibilmente raggiunse I'Europa alla fine del Pleistocene inferiore. L'arrivo degli orsi bruni in Europa è un evento significativo, che all'incirca coincise con il grande rinnovamento faunistico del passaggio Pleistocene inferiore-Pleistocene medio. Gli orsi bruni soppiantarono gli orsi etruschi, tipici dei contesti faunistici villafranchiani, e dettero origine alla linea degli orsi delle caverne. Gli orsi delle caverne ebbero grande successo in Europa nel Pleistocene medio e superiore e scomparvero alla fine dell'ultima glaciazione quaternaria o nel corso del primo Olocene.
    [Show full text]
  • Faced Bear, Arctotherium, from the Pleistocene of California
    I. RELATIONSHIPS AND STRUCTURE OF THE SHORT~ FACED BEAR, ARCTOTHERIUM, FROM THE PLEISTOCENE OF CALIFORNIA. By JOHN C. MERRIAM and CHESTER STOCK. With ten plates and five text-figures. 1 CONTENTS. PAGE Introduct-ion. 3 Systematic position of Arctotherium and its allies with relation to the typical Ursidae. 4 Origin of the Tremarctinae. 5 Summary of species of Arctotherium in the Pleistocene of North America. 7 Occurrence in California of arctotheres and associated faunas . 9 Potter Creek Cave. 9 Rancho La Brea. 10 McKittrick. .......... .... .......... ....... ...... ................. 11 Odontolo~Y. and osteology of Arctotherium. 11 DentitiOn . 11 Axial skeleton. 16 Appendicular skeleton. 21 Bibliography . 34 2 RELATIONSHIPS AND STRUCTURE OF THE SHORT-FACED BEAR, ARCTOTHERIUM, FROM THE PLEISTOCENE OF CALIFORNIA. BY JoHN C . MERRIAM AND CHESTER STocK. INTRODUCTION. The peculiar short-faced Californian bear, known as Arctotherium simum, was described by Cope in 1879 from a single specimen, con­ sisting of a skull minus the lower jaw, found by J. A. Richardson in 1878 in Potter Creek Cave on the McCloud River in northern California. Since the description of A. simum, a nearly perfect skull with lower jaw and a large quantity of additional material, representing nearly all parts of the skeleton and dentition of this species, has been obtained from the deposits of Potter Creek Cave as a result of further work carried on for the University of California by E. L. Furlong and by W. J. Sinclair in 1902 and 1903. Splendid material of Arctotherium has also been secured in the Pleistocene asphalt beds at Rancho La Brea by the Los Angeles Museum of History, Science, and Art.
    [Show full text]
  • References: Future Works
    Phylogenomics and Evolution of the Ursidae Family Department of Biology Ammary Jackson, Keanu Spencer, & Alissya Theis Fig 8. Red Panda Fig. 6. American Black Bear (Ailurus fulgens) (Ursus americanus) Introduction: Ursidae is a family of generally omnivorous mammals colloquially Objectives: Results: referred to as bears. The family consists of five genera: Ailuropoda ● To determine the relatedness among the 30 individual bear taxa. Red Panda (giant panda), Helarctos (sun bear), Melursus (sloth bear), Tremarctos Spectacled Bear ● To determine if Ailurus fulgens obtained its common Spectacled Bear (spectacled bear), and Ursus (black, brown, and polar bears) all of Polar Bear name (Red Panda) from similarities to the genes Polar Bear which are found in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa Polar Bear belonging to the Ursidae family or if it’s simply based on Polar Bear (Kumar et al. 2017.) The phylogenetic relationship between Ursidae Polar Bear phenotypic attributes. Polar Bear bears and the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) has been somewhat Brown Bear inconsistent and controversial. Previous phylogenetic analyses have Brown Bear Brown Bear placed the red panda within the families Ursidae (bears), Procyonidae Polar Bear Brown Bear (raccoons), Pinnepedia (seals), and Musteloidea (raccoons and weasels, Brown Bear Brown Bear skunks, and badgers) (Flynn et al. 2000.) Determining monophyly Methods: Cave Bear Cave Bear would elucidate the evolutionary relationship between Ursidae bears Sloth Bear ● Mitochondrial gene sequences of the ATP6 and ND1 genes Sloth Bear and the Red Panda. This analysis (i) tested the monophyly of the family Sun Bear were taken from a sample of 31 species (30 Ursidae family Sun Bear Ursidae; and (ii) determined how the Red Panda fits within the Black Bear and 1 Ailuridae family).
    [Show full text]
  • Bipedal Hominins
    INTRODUCTION Although captive chimpanzees, bonobos and other great apes have acquired some of the features of There is fairly general agreement that language is a language, including the use of symbols to denote uniquely human accomplishment. Although other objects or actions, they have not displayed species communicate in diverse ways, human anything like recursive syntax, or indeed any language has properties that stand out as special. degree of generativity beyond the occasional 4 The most obvious of these is generativity -the ability combining of symbols in pairs. To quote Pinker, to construct a potentially infinite variety of they simply don’t “get it.” This suggests that the sentences, conveying an infinite variety of common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee was meanings. Animal communication is by contrast almost certainly bereft of anything we might stereotyped and restricted to particular situations, consider to be true language. Human language and typically conveys emotional rather than must therefore have evolved its distinctive propositional information. The generativity of characteristics over the past 6 million years. Some language was noted by Descartes as one of the have claimed that this occurred in a single step, characteristics separating humans from other and recently -perhaps as recently as 170,000 years species, and has also been emphasized more ago, coincident with the emergence of our own recently by Chomsky, as in the following often- species. This is sometimes referred to as the “big quoted passage: bang” theory of language evolution. For example, Bickerton5 asserted that “… true language, via the “The unboundedness of human speech, as an emergence of syntax, was a catastrophic event, expression of limitless thought, is an entirely occurring within the first few generations of Homo different matter (from animal communication), sapiens sapiens (p.
    [Show full text]