DOCSLIB.ORG

TABLE 1. Revised Hoogland HGD Mammal Assem- Blage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TABLE 1. Revised Hoogland HGD Mammal Assem- Blage PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG TABLE 1. Revised Hoogland HGD mammal assem- Taxon NISP MNI blage. Tribe Cephalophini/Neotragini 1 - Tribe Hippotragini/Reduncini 1 - Taxon NISP MNI Tribe Hippotragini/Tragelaphini 1 - Class Mammalia Order Primates Bovidae indet. Family Cercopithecidae Class I 314 - Subfamily Colobinae Class II 199 - Tribe Colobini Class III 122 - Cercopithecoides haasgati 22 12 Class IV 9 - Cercopithecoides williamsi 3 3 Indet. Class 18 - Cercopithecoides cf. williamsi 1 - Family Suidae Cercopithecoides sp. 2 1 Tribe Phacochoerini cf. Cercopithecoides 1 1 Phacochoerini indet. 2 2 Subfamily Cercopithecinae ?Suidae indet. 1 - Tribe Papionini Papio angusticeps 88 37 Order Carnivora Papio sp. 21 - Family Felidae Cercopithecidae indet. 117 - cf. Dinofelis sp. 1 1 Primates indet. 1 - Family Hyaenidae Hyaenidae indet. 1 1 Carnivora indet. 1 - Order Artiodactyla Family Bovidae Order Perissiodactyla Tribe Alcelaphini Family Equidae Connochaetes gnou 75 Equus capensis 19 1 Connochaetes sp. 5 3 Equus cf. quagga 31 Damaliscus dorcas 1 1 Equus sp. 51 - Damaliscus sp. 2 2 Equidae indet. 2 - Megalotragus sp. 1 1 Alcelaphini indet. 116 10 Order Hyracoidea Family Procaviidae Tribe Antilopini Procavia antiqua 17 8 Antidorcas bondi 11 Procavia transvaalensis 44 13 Antidorcas australis/marsupialis 4 2 Procavia sp. 6- Antidorcas sp. 5 - Tribe Hippotragini Order Lagomorpha Hippotragus sp. 5 3 Family Leporidae Tribe Neotragini Pronolagus rupestris 21 Oreotragus sp. 158 24 Leporidae indet. 1 - Tribe Reduncini Reduncini indet. 9 5 Order Rodentia Tribe Tragelaphini Family Hystricidae Taurotragus sp. 5 4 Hystrix africaeaustralis 38 9 Tragelaphus sp. 5 2 Total 1446 154 Tragelaphini indet. 1 - Tribe Antilopini/Neotragini 11 - 1 TABLE 2. Craniodental measurements of extant and fossil Oreotragus. Makapansgat Member 3 Oreotragus 2 Extant Oreotragus oreotragus Haasgat HGD Oreotragus sp. Gondolin GD 2 Oreotragus sp. A sp. Measurement DAMS Mean s Min. Max. n Mean s Min. Max. n Mean s Min. Max. n Mean s Min. Max. n : H Maxillary AASGAT P2 length 7.98 0.53 6.98 8.78 15 10.95 0.57 9.98 11.92 8 8.68 0.66 7.32 9.68 20 9.58 0.75 8.75 10.19 3 P2 width 5.94 0.70 4.49 7.64 15 7.30 0.72 6.38 8.13 7 6.04 0.78 4.64 7.05 18 7.30 0.33 6.93 7.54 3 P3 length 7.68 0.53 6.91 8.58 16 9.79 0.40 9.11 10.30 7 9.28 0.66 8.18 10.39 11 9.03 0.76 8.16 9.56 3 HGD A P3 width 6.18 0.45 5.24 6.88 16 7.93 0.78 7.08 9.42 7 6.37 0.78 5.15 7.53 11 7.14 0.27 6.83 7.35 3 P4 length 6.92 0.60 6.21 8.05 16 8.68 0.62 7.82 9.75 9 9.02 1.12 7.90 11.25 10 8.17 0.54 7.70 8.94 4 SSEMBLAGE P4 width 6.57 0.58 5.33 7.31 16 8.29 0.71 7.15 9.57 11 6.97 0.74 5.77 8.15 10 7.24 0.76 6.40 7.93 4 M1 length 8.80 1.11 7.26 11.21 19 11.30 0.42 10.70 11.68 4 10.55 0.84 9.40 13.12 16 9.97 0.41 9.61 10.41 3 M1 width 7.45 0.65 6.48 8.73 19 9.41 0.81 8.38 10.41 6 7.52 1.33 5.80 10.23 17 7.59 0.47 7.05 7.91 3 M2 length 10.03 0.81 8.43 11.62 19 13.61 1.39 11.72 14.94 4 11.26 0.79 9.79 12.70 15 11.28 0.42 10.66 11.54 4 M2 width 7.63 0.68 6.62 8.79 19 9.77 0.60 9.14 10.82 7 7.04 0.79 5.56 8.35 15 8.01 0.56 7.48 8.65 4 M3 length 9.49 0.27 9.11 10.04 17 12.27 0.61 11.49 13.13 6 10.02 0.47 9.48 10.86 10 10.41 10.41 10.41 1 M3 width 6.56 0.55 5.87 7.44 17 9.22 1.05 7.93 11.03 7 6.60 0.76 5.61 7.86 11 6.78 6.78 6.78 1 Premolar Row Length 23.18 1.45 21.35 27.12 18 28.85 1.58 27.70 30.65 3 26.92 26.92 26.92 1 26.60 0.84 25.69 27.36 3 Molar Row Length 27.27 1.26 24.79 29.45 17 34.01 1.37 32.02 35.71 5 32.21 0.83 31.25 33.25 4 30.76 2.33 29.11 32.41 2 Mandibular p2 length 4.75 0.61 4.02 5.80 12 6.18 0.54 5.79 6.56 2 5.53 0.68 4.60 7.22 22 5.71 0.33 5.14 5.92 5 p2 width 2.76 0.29 2.42 3.19 12 3.79 0.39 3.36 4.10 3 3.11 0.23 2.66 3.63 22 3.21 0.15 3.09 3.47 5 p3 length 8.16 0.86 6.68 9.52 12 10.19 0.92 9.10 11.54 8 9.15 1.08 7.09 10.91 20 9.32 0.54 8.16 9.99 10 p3 width 3.84 0.32 3.36 4.30 12 5.11 0.48 4.18 5.97 9 3.99 0.48 3.08 4.84 20 4.47 0.39 3.83 4.99 10 p4 length 9.14 0.82 7.82 10.42 12 11.48 1.24 10.58 13.93 6 11.23 1.41 9.44 13.25 14 10.59 0.62 9.45 11.59 12 p4 width 4.57 0.47 3.79 5.17 12 5.97 0.36 5.40 6.43 7 4.27 0.84 3.17 5.86 14 5.22 0.33 4.52 5.76 12 m1 length 8.62 0.89 7.45 11.03 16 10.99 0.57 10.30 11.92 9 10.02 0.88 8.66 11.41 14 10.18 0.80 8.69 11.93 27 m1 width 5.25 0.34 4.61 6.04 16 6.34 0.35 5.72 6.73 9 5.08 0.54 4.41 6.06 14 5.75 0.32 5.11 6.48 28 m2 length 9.73 0.91 8.47 12.13 16 12.45 0.70 11.14 13.65 18 10.53 0.79 8.62 11.86 17 11.18 0.91 9.59 12.73 32 m2 width 5.31 0.35 4.64 5.74 16 6.43 0.49 5.62 7.48 16 5.50 0.52 4.27 6.31 17 6.02 1.14 5.23 12.57 38 m3 length 12.65 0.71 11.34 13.61 14 15.55 0.81 14.50 16.60 13 13.68 0.80 12.35 15.18 20 13.59 1.74 5.46 14.87 26 m3 width 4.94 0.39 4.21 5.52 14 6.00 0.31 5.40 6.42 14 5.22 0.40 4.66 5.91 20 5.42 0.32 4.77 5.85 25 Premolar Row Length (PRL) 21.87 1.77 19.08 25.06 15 25.57 0.25 25.39 25.75 2 24.21 0.87 23.20 25.20 4 24.32 0.80 23.39 24.83 3 Molar Row Length (MRL) 30.28 1.21 28.08 32.18 14 37.94 1.03 36.27 39.15 6 34.79 0.94 33.89 35.86 5 34.70 1.03 32.72 36.71 13 Corpus Depth (Diastema) (DD) 16.98 1.35 14.48 18.94 13 23.29 1.13 21.65 24.90 8 20.79 1.18 19.28 22.42 8 21.28 1.62 17.38 23.85 19 Corpus Depth (m2/m3) (MD) 8.74 0.83 7.54 10.63 15 12.76 12.76 12.76 1 9.73 0.47 8.96 10.43 8 10.69 1.01 10.00 11.85 3 Corpus Width (m2/m3) (CW) 8.00 0.56 6.95 8.73 9 10.69 1.24 9.22 12.93 10 9.59 0.34 9.14 10.04 7 10.99 0.58 10.58 11.40 2 PRL/MD 0.71 0.04 0.62 0.76 13 0.67 0.67 0.67 1 0.69 0.02 0.68 0.70 2 0.76 0.76 0.76 1 MD/MRL 0.56 0.05 0.47 0.63 13 0.62 0.02 0.60 0.63 3 0.58 0.05 0.54 0.63 3 0.65 0.02 0.64 0.67 2 DD/MRL 0.29 0.03 0.24 0.33 13 0.35 0.35 0.35 1 0.28 0.28 0.28 1 0.32 0.03 0.31 0.34 2 MD/CW 2.07 0.16 1.81 2.31 9 2.31 0.21 2.12 2.61 7 2.15 0.15 1.96 2.35 7 2.00 0.02 1.99 2.02 2 PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG TABLE 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chromosomal Evolution in Raphicerus Antelope Suggests Divergent X
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Chromosomal evolution in Raphicerus antelope suggests divergent X chromosomes may drive speciation through females, rather than males, contrary to Haldane’s rule Terence J. Robinson1*, Halina Cernohorska2, Svatava Kubickova2, Miluse Vozdova2, Petra Musilova2 & Aurora Ruiz‑Herrera3,4 Chromosome structural change has long been considered important in the evolution of post‑zygotic reproductive isolation. The premise that karyotypic variation can serve as a possible barrier to gene fow is founded on the expectation that heterozygotes for structurally distinct chromosomal forms would be partially sterile (negatively heterotic) or show reduced recombination. We report the outcome of a detailed comparative molecular cytogenetic study of three antelope species, genus Raphicerus, that have undergone a rapid radiation. The species are largely conserved with respect to their euchromatic regions but the X chromosomes, in marked contrast, show distinct patterns of heterochromatic amplifcation and localization of repeats that have occurred independently in each lineage. We argue a novel hypothesis that postulates that the expansion of heterochromatic blocks in the homogametic sex can, with certain conditions, contribute to post‑ zygotic isolation. i.e., female hybrid incompatibility, the converse of Haldane’s rule. This is based on the expectation that hybrids incur a selective disadvantage due to impaired meiosis resulting from the meiotic checkpoint network’s surveillance of the asymmetric expansions of heterochromatic blocks in the homogametic sex. Asynapsis of these heterochromatic regions would result in meiotic silencing of unsynapsed chromatin and, if this persists, germline apoptosis and female infertility. Te chromosomal speciation theory 1,2 also referred to as the “Hybrid dysfunction model”3, has been one of the most intriguing questions in biology for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Taxonomy and Iversity of Crown Ruminants Above the Species
    Zitteliana B 32 (2014) 5 Current taxonomy and diversity of crown ruminants above the species level Colin Groves School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University Zitteliana B 32, 5 – 14 Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia München, 31.12.2014 E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript received 17.01.2014; revision accepted 20.10.2014 ISSN 1612 - 4138 Abstract Linnaeus gave us the idea of systematics, with each taxon of lower rank nested inside one of higher rank; Darwin showed that these taxa are the result of evolution; Hennig demonstrated that, if they are to mean anything, all taxa must represent monophyla. He also pro- posed that, to bring objectivity into the system, each taxonomic rank should be characterised by a particular time depth, but this is not easy to bring about: genera such as Drosophila and Eucalyptus have a time-depth comparable to whole orders among mammals! Within restricted groups of organisms, however, time-depths do tend to vary within limits: we will not do too much violence to current usage if we insist that a modern mammal (including ruminant) genus must have a time-depth of about 5 million years, i.e. going back at least to the Miocene-Pliocene boundary, and a modern family must have a time-depth of about 25 million years, i.e. going back to the Oligocene- Miocene boundary. Molecular studies show that living ruminants present examples where the „traditional“ classification (in the main laid down in the mid- 20th-century, and all too often still accepted as standard even today) violates Hennigian principles.
    [Show full text]
  • For Review Only 440 IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group
    Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Mammalogy A Pliocene hybridisation event reconciles incongruent mitochondrial and nuclear gene trees among spiral-horned antelopes Journal:For Journal Review of Mammalogy Only Manuscript ID Draft Manuscript Type: Feature Article Date Submitted by the Author: n/a Complete List of Authors: Rakotoarivelo, Andrinajoro; University of Venda, Department of Zoology O'Donoghue, Paul; Specialist Wildlife Services, Specialist Wildlife Services Bruford, Michael; Cardiff University, Cardiff School of Biosciences Moodley, Yoshan; University of Venda, Department of Zoology adaptive radiation, interspecific hybridisation, paleoclimate, Sub-Saharan Keywords: Africa, Tragelaphus https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmamm Page 1 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Mammalogy 1 Yoshan Moodley, Department of Zoology, University of Venda, 2 [email protected] 3 Interspecific hybridization in Tragelaphus 4 A Pliocene hybridisation event reconciles incongruent mitochondrial and nuclear gene 5 trees among spiral-horned antelopes 6 ANDRINAJORO R. RAKATOARIVELO, PAUL O’DONOGHUE, MICHAEL W. BRUFORD, AND * 7 YOSHAN MOODLEY 8 Department of Zoology, University of Venda, University Road, Thohoyandou 0950, Republic 9 of South Africa (ARR, ForYM) Review Only 10 Specialist Wildlife Services, 102 Bowen Court, St Asaph, LL17 0JE, United Kingdom (PO) 11 Cardiff School of Biosciences, Sir Martin Evans Building, Cardiff University, Museum 12 Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, United Kingdom (MWB) 13 Natiora Ahy Madagasikara, Lot IIU57K Bis, Ampahibe, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar 14 (ARR) 15 16 1 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmamm Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Mammalogy Page 2 of 34 17 ABSTRACT 18 The spiral-horned antelopes (Genus Tragelaphus) are among the most phenotypically diverse 19 of all large mammals, and evolved in Africa during an adaptive radiation that began in the late 20 Miocene, around 6 million years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for the Conservation of Key Species in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania
    Genetic Patterns in Forest Antelope Populations: Implications for the Conservation of Key Species in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania Submitted by Andrew Edward Bowkett, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences In September 2012 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. ABSTRACT The field of conservation genetics, in combination with non-invasive sampling, provides a powerful set of tools for investigating the conservation status and natural history of rare species that are otherwise difficult to study. A systematic literature review demonstrated that this is certainly the case for many forest- associated antelope species, which are poorly studied and yet constitute some of the most heavily hunted wildlife in Africa. The aim of the present study was to use non-invasive sampling to investigate genetic patterns in forest antelope populations in the high-biodiversity Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania, within the context of the conservation of these species and the wider ecosystem. Genetic information was derived from faecal samples collected across the Udzungwa landscape and assigned to five antelope species (N = 618, collected 2006-09). Faecal pellet length was measured for a subset of samples but statistical assignment to species by this method proved unreliable.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Effect of Tooth Wear on Bovid Identification
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Mathematics and Statistics: Faculty Faculty Publications and Other Works by Publications and Other Works Department 7-30-2019 An Analysis of the Effect of Tooth Wear on Bovid Identification Juliet K. Brophy Louisiana State University Gregory J. Matthews Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] George K. Thiruvathukal Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/math_facpubs Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Brophy, Juliet K.; Matthews, Gregory J.; and Thiruvathukal, George K.. An Analysis of the Effect of Tooth Wear on Bovid Identification. South African Journal of Science, 115, 7/8: , 2019. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Mathematics and Statistics: Faculty Publications and Other Works, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17159/sajs.2019/5496 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications and Other Works by Department at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mathematics and Statistics: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. © The Authors, 2019. An analysis of the effect of tooth wear on AUTHORS: bovid identification Juliet K. Brophy1 Gregory J. Matthews2 3 George K. Thiruvathukal Previous research provides a method for reducing the subjectivity in taxonomic identification of species in AFFILIATIONS: the family Bovidae by quantifying the occlusal surface of molar teeth using elliptical Fourier analysis. In this 1Department of Geography current study, we specifically test what effect medium to late tooth wear has on the identification of bovids and Anthropology, Louisiana when using the form (size and shape) of the occlusal surface to classify specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of the Conservation of Oribi (Ourebia Ourebi) in Kwazulu-Natal
    Aspects ofthe conservation oforibi (Ourebia ourebi) in KwaZulu-Natal Rebecca Victoria Grey Submitted in partial fulfilment ofthe requirements for the degree of Master ofScience In the School ofBiological and Conservation Sciences At the University ofKwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg November 2006 Abstract The oribi Ourebia ourebi is probably South Africa's most endangered antelope. As a specialist grazer, it is extremely susceptible to habitat loss and the transformation of habitat by development. Another major threat to this species is illegal hunting. Although protected and listed as an endangered species in South Africa, illegal poaching is widespread and a major contributor to decreasing oribi populations. This study investigated methods of increasing oribi populations by using translocations and reintroductions to boost oribi numbers and by addressing over­ hunting. Captive breeding has been used as a conservation tool as a useful way of keeping individuals of a species in captivity as a backup for declining wild populations. In addition, most captive breeding programmes are aimed at eventually being able to reintroduce certain captive-bred individuals back into the wild to supplement wild populations. This can be a very costly exercise and often results in failure. However, captive breeding is a good way to educate the public and create awareness for the species and its threats. Captive breeding of oribi has only been attempted a few times in South Africa, with varied results. A private breeding programme in Wartburg, KwaZulu-Natal was quite successful with the breeding of oribi. A reintroduction programme for these captive-bred oribi was monitored using radio telemetry to assess the efficacy ofsuch a programme for the oribi.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Conservation of Mini-Antelope: Proceedings of an International Symposium and on Duiker and Dwarf Antelope in Africa
    SPECIES CONCEPTS AND THE REAL DIVERSITY OF ANTELOPES F. P. D. COTTERILL Principal Curator of Vertebrates, Department of Mammalogy, Natural History Museum of Zimbabwe, P. O. Box 240, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe 2003. In A. Plowman (Ed.). Ecology and Conservation of Mini-antelope: Proceedings of an International Symposium and on Duiker and Dwarf Antelope in Africa. Filander Verlag: Füürth. pp. 59-118. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa, Secretariat: P O Box FM730, Famona, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe (Address for correspondence) email: [email protected] Abstract As for all biodiversity, society requires an accurate taxonomy of the Bovidae. We need to know what the different antelopes really are, and where these occur. Sound scientific, economic and aesthetic arguments underpin this rationale. This paper highlights some of the costs that result from the misconstrual of the real nature of species. Controversy reigns over which species concepts are most applicable to characterize biodiversity; a controversy magnified by how different species concepts create taxonomies of differing accuracy and precision. The contemporary taxonomy of the Mammalia continues to be based on the Biological Species Concept (BSC). Its deficiencies are too rarely acknowledged, and afflict apparently well known taxa of large mammals, notably the Bovidae. Errors in the BSC misconstrue natural patterns of diversity: recognizing too many (Type I errors), or too few species (Type II errors). Most insidious are Type III errors; where evolutionary relationships are misconstrued because the BSC cannot conceptualize, and thus ignores phylogenetic uniqueness. The general trend in current taxonomies of antelopes is to under represent true diversity - exemplified in the dikdiks (Type II errors). Misconstrual of phylogenetic relationships among species (Type III errors) appear rampant in these same taxonomies (the Cephalophini for example).
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Systematics and Evolution of the Artiodactyl Family Bovidae (Phylogeny/Ntdna Sequences/Rrna Genes/Rapid Cladogenesis) MARC W
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 89, pp. 3972-3976, May 1992 Evolution DNA systematics and evolution of the artiodactyl family Bovidae (phylogeny/ntDNA sequences/rRNA genes/rapid cladogenesis) MARC W. ALLARD, MICHAEL M. MIYAMOTO, LIANNA JARECKI, FRED KRAuS, AND MICHELE R. TENNANT Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2009 Communicated by Charles G. Sibley, January 17, 1992 (received for review October 29, 1991) ABSTRACT Nine additional sequences from representa- outgroup representatives of the infraorder Pecora (8, 9). The tives ofdierent tribes ofthefamily Bovidae were combined with time of divergence for the bovid tribes [estimates ranging six published artiodactyl sequences to provide orthologous from 7 to 20 MA (7)] suggests that relationships within the mtDNA for investigation ofbovid phylogeny and evolution. Each family should be resolvable with this gene complex, which species was represented by a homologous 2.7-kilobase-pair evolves at a rate suitable for this analysis (10). Of the 14 stretch ofmtDNA for the complete 12S and 16S rRNA genes and commonly recognized tribes of Bovidae, only 3 (Ovibovini, three adjacent tRNA genes. These data, whencompared toother Peleini, and Rupicaprini) were not available for this sequenc- results, provided evidence for a monophyletic Bovidae and for ing study; their later inclusion will provide tests of the two clades within the family: one including the tribes Bosela- hypotheses developed herein. phini, Bovini, and Tragelaphini and another for an Antilo- pini/Neotragini grouping. AU other intrafamilial relationships MATERIALS AND METHODS were only weakly supported. These sequence comparisons sug- mtDNA sequences were collected from nine tribal represen- gest that most bovid tribes originated early in the Miocene with tatives including Aepyceros melampus (AME), Boselaphus all extant lineages present by -16-17 million years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Phylogenetic Relationships of Antilopini And
    Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 1(1): 1-11 (2017) by Arak University, Iran (http://jwb.araku.ac.ir/) Research Article DOI: 10.22120/jwb.2017.26903 Evaluation of phylogenetic relationships of Antilopini and Oreotragini tribes (Bovidae: Artiodactyla) based on complete mitochondrial genomes using these genomes, we can meticulously Taghi Ghassemi-Khademi reconstruct and modify the animal classification. Iranian academic center for education, culture Keywords: Antilopinae, phylogeny, mtDNA, and research (ACECR), Ardabil, Iran. e-mail: biosystematics, taxonomy. [email protected] Received: 2 July 2017 / Revised: 5 August 2017 / Accepted: 13 August 2017 / Published online: 17 August 2017. Ministry of Introduction Sciences, Research and Technology, Arak University, Iran. Taxonomically, Antilopes belongs to Kingdom: Animalia (metazoan), Phylum: Chordata, Abstract Subphylum: Vertebrata, Class: Mammalia, Sub- class: Theria, Super- order: Eutheria (Placenta), In this research, phylogenetic relationships of 24 Order: Artiodactyla, Suborder: Ruminantia, species from the subfamily Antilopinae were Family: Bovidae, Sub-family: Antilopinae, and evaluated using complete mitochondrial tribe: Antilopini (Wilson and Reeder 2005). genomes. The average base composition of mtDNA sequences was 27.8% T, 25.2% C, Based on the traditional and previous 33.7% A, and 13.3% G, showing a strong AT classifications, the subfamily of Antilopinae is bias (61.5%). The phylogenetic trees were comprised of three different tribe and sixteen investigated using the NJ, ME and UPGMA live genera: the tribe Antilopini has eight genera methods and found that they have very identical including Genus Gazella, Genus Antilope, topologies. Overall, consistent with findings of Genus Ammodorcas, Genus Antidorcas, Genus previous studies, the results revealed that the Litocranius, Genus Eudorcas, Genus Nanger, Antilopini tribe has been correctly demarcated.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of the Land Mammals Tanganyika Territory Zanzibar
    274 G. H. SWYNNERTON,F.Z.S., Checklist oj Land Mammals VOL. XX A Checklist of the Land Mammals OF mE Tanganyika Territory AND mE Zanzibar Protectorate By G. H. SWYNNERTON, F.Z.S., Game Warde:z, Game Preservation Department, Tanganyika Territory, and R. W. HAYMAN, F.Z.S., Senior Experimental Officer, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) 277278·.25111917122896 .· · 4 . (1)(3)(-)(2)(5)(9)(3)(4)280290281283286289295288291 280. .. CONTENTS· · · No. OF FORMS* 1. FOREWORDINSECTIVORA ErinaceidaM:,gadermatidaEmballonuridaSoricidt:eMacroscelididaMarossidaNycteridaHipposideridaRhinolophidaVespertilionida(Shrews)(Free-tailed(Hollow-faced(Hedgehogs)(Horseshoe(Leaf-nosed(Sheath-tailed(Elephant(Simple-nosed(Big-earedBats)Bats)Shrews)BatsBats)Bats) Pteropodida (Fruit-eating Bats) 2.3. INTRODUCTIONSYSTEMATICLIST OF SPECIESAND SUBSPECIES: PAGE CHIROPTERA Chrysochlorida (Golden" Moles to) ···302306191210.3521. ·2387 . · 6 · IAN. (1)(2)1951(-)(4)(21)(1)(6)(14)(6)(5),(7)(8)333310302304306332298305309303297337324325336337339211327 . SWYNNERTON,. P.Z.S.,·· ·Checklist··· of·Land 3293Mammals52 275 PItIMATES G. It. RhinocerotidaPelidaEchimyidaHyanidaPongidaCercopithecidaHystricidaMuridaHominidaAnomaluridaPedetidaCaviidaMustelidaGliridaSciuridaViverrida(Cats,(Mice,(Dormice)(Guinea-pigs)(Apes)(Squirrels)(Spring(Hyaenas,(Genets,(Man)(Polecats,(Cane(porcupines)(Flying(Rhinoceroses)Leopards,(Monkeys,Rats,Haas)Rats)Civets,Arad-wolf).Weasels,Squirrels)Gerbils,Lions,Baboons)Mongooses)Ratels,etc.)•Cheetahs)..Otters) ProcaviidaCanidaLeporidaElephantidaLorisidaOrycteropodidaEquidaBathyergidaManida
    [Show full text]
  • Antelopes, Gazelles, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, and Relatives
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. INTRODUCTION RECOGNITION The family Bovidae, which includes Antelopes, Cattle, Duikers, Gazelles, Goats, and Sheep, is the largest family within Artiodactyla and the most diverse family of ungulates, with more than 270 recent species. Their common characteristic is their unbranched, non-deciduous horns. Bovids are primarily Old World in their distribution, although a few species are found in North America. The name antelope is often used to describe many members of this family, but it is not a definable, taxonomically based term. Shape, size, and color: Bovids encompass an extremely wide size range, from the minuscule Royal Antelope and the Dik-diks, weighing as little as 2 kg and standing 25 to 35 cm at the shoulder, to the Asian Wild Water Buffalo, which weighs as much as 1,200 kg, and the Gaur, which measures up to 220 cm at the shoulder. Body shape varies from relatively small, slender-limbed, and thin-necked species such as the Gazelles to the massive, stocky wild cattle (fig. 1). The forequarters may be larger than the hind, or the reverse, as in smaller species inhabiting dense tropical forests (e.g., Duikers). There is also a great variety in body coloration, although most species are some shade of brown. It can consist of a solid shade, or a patterned pelage. Antelopes that rely on concealment to avoid predators are cryptically colored. The stripes and blotches seen on the hides of Bushbuck, Bongo, and Kudu also function as camouflage by helping to disrupt the animals’ outline.
    [Show full text]
  • A Re-Evaluation of Phylogenetic Relationships Within the Tribe
    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2017; 5(5): 1025-1032 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 A re-evaluation of phylogenetic relationships JEZS 2017; 5(5): 1025-1032 © 2017 JEZS within the tribe Tragelaphini (Bovinae: Bovidae), Received: 12-07-2017 Accepted: 13-08-2017 based on complete mitochondrial genomes Taghi Ghassemi Khademi Iranian Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research Taghi Ghassemi Khademi (ACECR), Ardabil branch, Ardabil, Iran Abstract In this research, phylogenetic relationships of eight species from the tribe Tragelaphini were evaluated using complete mitochondrial genomes. Today, the most of the species belonging to the tribe Tragelaphini, face the risk of declining generation and extinction and they are on the red list of IUCN. Therefore, recognizing the evolutionary biology of them is a very positive step in preventing their extinction. In present research, the average base composition of mtDNA sequences was 26.9% T, 25.9% C, 33.6% A, and 13.6% G, showing a strong AT bias (60.5%). The phylogenetic trees were investigated using the ML, ME and NJ methods and found that they have very identical topologies. In general, the results of this study were similar to the other molecular phylogenetic studies and in obvious contradiction with the morphological results. For example, Derby eland (Taurotragus derbianus) shows a very close phylogenetic relationship with other members of the tribe Tragelaphini and should not be in a separate genus. Also, in all of the phylogenetic trees, T. imberbis completely was separated from other species and was not located into a single cluster with them.
    [Show full text]