DOCSLIB.ORG

Novitates PUBLISHED by the AMERICAN MUSEUM of NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST at 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Novitates PUBLISHED by the AMERICAN MUSEUM of NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST at 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y AMERICAN MUSEUM Novitates PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10024 Number 2877, pp. 1-1.8, figs. 1-10 April 28, 1987 Auditory Features and Affinities of the Eocene Bats Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropteryx (Microchiroptera, incertae sedis) MICHAEL J. NOVACEKI ABSTRACT The earliest known bats are skeletons of Icaro- ly, there is no reason to recognize a "primitive- nycteris index from the early Eocene of western ancestral" group, Eochiroptera, that is excluded Wyoming and a few less well-represented species from Microchiroptera or Megachiroptera. The re- from the early Eocene of France. Also known are lationships ofIcaronycteris and Palaeochiropteryx Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon and several other within Microchiroptera remain uncertain. Asso- species from the middle Eocene of western Ger- ciation ofthese taxa and several other Eocene forms many. These taxa have been regarded as primitive within the microchiropteran superfamily Palaeo- forms, either "ancestral" to echolocating micro- chiropterygoidea fails to clarify these relation- chiropterans or "ancestral" to both micro- and ships. Palaeochiropterygoidea has not been de- megachiropterans. Details ofbasicranial structure fined by derived characters, and Icaronycteris and suggest that these Eocene forms were, however, Palaeochiropteryx are more accurately designated specialized echolocators comparable to Recent Microchiroptera incertae sedis. Several primitive microchiropterans. Moreover, quantitative anal- features shown by Icaronycteris suggest that the ysis reveals that the Eocene bats have a more pro- development of a sophisticated system for echo- nounced expansion of the cochlea than many Re- 'location within Microchiroptera occurred earlier cent microchiropteran species. There is clear than certain modifications ofthe postcranial skel- justification for reference ofIcaronycteris and Pa- eton. laeochiropteryx to the Microchiroptera. Converse- INTRODUCTION The oldest bats in the fossil record are early scribed by Jepsen (1966) from an exquisite, Eocene in age. Icaronycteris index was de- nearly complete skeleton found in the Green I Chairman and Associate Curator, Department ofVertebrate Paleontology, American Museum ofNatural History. Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 1987 ISSN 0003-0082 / Price $2.00 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 2877 River Formation of Fossil Lake, Wyoming. The above classification is, however, in Later found were two other skeletons of this conflict with certain other studies. Segall genus (Novacek, 1985a). Also known from (1971) argued that Icaronycteris index shared early Eocene faunas are Icaronycteris? menui, a more general basicranial structure with er- Archaeonycteris brailloni, andAgeina tobieni, inaceid insectivorans and megachiropterans, all described by Russell et al. (1973) from the and lacked many of the morphological cor- Mutigny and Avenay quarries in northeast relates with ultrasonic echolocation found in Epemay, Maine, France. These latter three microchiropterans. Furthermore, Jepsen species are known only from partial denti- (1966, 1970) had also emphasized the large tions. number of primitive traits in the skeleton of The middle Eocene bat Palaeochiropteryx Icaronycteris. Accordingly, Van Valen (1979) tupaiodon was first described by Revilliod recognized Icaronycteris and other palaeo- (1917) from the famous "Grube Messel" near chiropterygoideans as members of the sub- Darmstadt, Hessen, West Germany. A large order Eochiroptera, a group either more re- number of skeletons (more than 54 individ- motely divergent than or "ancestral" to the uals) of this bat have been recovered from Microchiroptera and Megachiroptera (Van the site (see Smith and Storch, 1981). Other Valen, 1979, fig. 1). bats from the Messel pit include Archeonyc- Study of described and undescribed ma- teris trigonodon Revilliod, 1917; "Archaeo- terial representing Icaronycteris contradicts nycteris" revilliodi Russell and Sige, 1970; Segall's (1971) description of the auditory Hassianycteris messelensis Smith and Storch, system of this bat as "non-microchiropter- 1981; and Hassianycteris magna Smith and an." Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropteryx both Storch, 1981. All of these forms are repre- clearly show several features that correlate sented by nearly complete skeletons. In ad- with the presence of ultrasonic echolocation dition, several species of middle Eocene bats in Recent microchiropterans. This point was (Cecilionycteris prisca Heller, 1935; Mat- the subject ofa briefreport (Novacek, 1985a). thesia germanica Sige and Russell, 1980; and The purpose of this paper is to provide a Matthesia? insolita Sige and Russell, 1980) more thorough description of these traits, are known from the "Grube Cecilie," Gei- better reproductions of the relevant illustra- seltal, near Halle a. S., East Germany. tions, and a discussion on the systematic im- The affinities ofthese fossil forms are prob- plications of the auditory morphology and lematic. Winge (1923, p. 304) regarded Pa- other cranioskeletal features in these fossil laeochiropteryx as essentially a primitive ves- bats. pertilionid of the suborder Microchiroptera. In a recent review, Smith and Storch (1981) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS endorsed some ofWinge's views, but did not refer Palaeochiropteryx to the Vespertilion- I thank Karl Koopman, Malcolm C. idae. They grouped the above-cited species McKenna, Andre Wyss (AMNH), Elizabeth (except for Hassianycteris which they loosely Pierson (University of California, Berkeley), allied with emballonurids or rhinolophids and Thomas A. Griffiths (Illinois Wesleyan Uni- recognized as Microchiroptera incertae sedis) versity), and Gary S. Morgan (Florida State within the Palaeochiropterygoidea Revilliod Museum) for criticisms of the manuscript. I 1917, suborder Microchiroptera. From this am especially appreciative to Dr. Griffiths for group they removed Archaeopteropus tran- his detailed comments and for sharing with siens Meschinelli, 1903 (locality: Monteviele, me his insights on the hyoid apparatus in northeast Italy, early Oligocene), and referred bats. For loan of specimens I am grateful to this species to the Megachiroptera. In this J. A. Lillegraven (University of Wyoming), action they claimed that Palaeochiroptery- D. Baird (Princeton University collections goidea was ". less paraphyletic" (Smith and now transferred to Yale University), and J. Storch, 1981, p. 163). Their grouping also Franzen (Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt, endorses Jepsen's (1966) original description West Germany). of Icaronycteris, wherein this taxon was as- Figures 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 are stereophotos, signed in the Microchiroptera. radiographs, and drawings from G. L. Jep- 1987 NOVACEK: EOCENE BAT EARS 3 Fig. 1. Stereophotograph of ventral skull of Icaronycteris index; type, PU (Princeton University) 18150. Note this specimen is now deposited in the Yale Peabody Museum Collection. Figure from Jepsen (1970). Symbols are: An, angular process ofdentary; Ax, axis; C, upper right canine; Cp, coronoid process of left dentary; Fp, postglenoid foramen; GI, glenoid fossa; i3, third lower left incisor; L, locator bristles; Ld, labial surface of left dentary; M3, third upper right molar; m3, third lower left molar; Oc, occipital condyles; P4, fourth upper right premolar; p3, third lower left premolar; SI, left stylohyal; Vc, vertebroarterial canal of atlas; Vd, ventral border of right dentary; Z, zygomatic arch. sen's collection of figures of Icaronycteris in- University] 18150) did not show marked en- dex. These were loaned by D. Baird at Prince- largement of the cochlea, although he ac- ton and are now maintained, along with the knowledged that only a small part of this type specimen, by the Yale Peabody Mu- structure was preserved. He based his as- seum. Dr. H. Tuengerthal made the radio- sessment on the observation that in Icaro- graphs shown in figure 4; Chester Tarka pre- nycteris the basioccipital is rather broad and pared figure 2; Barbara Pilarzk made figure straight along its boundaries with the tym- 5; and Lisa Lomauro prepared figures 6 and panic cavity and diverges only in its posterior 10 as well as the final layouts for all figures. region. Segall (1971) contrasted this condi- This paper was supported by the Frick Lab- tion, which is characteristic of many mam- oratory Endowment Fund in Vertebrate Pa- mals including megachiropterans, with the leontology at the American Museum ofNat- typically narrow, strongly biconcave basioc- ural History. cipital of microchiropterans. Whereas some microchiropterans do show a very reduced, AUDITORY STRUCTURES biconcave basioccipital (particularly natal- COCHLEA: Segall (1971) remarked that the ids, some rhinolophids, and vespertilionids), type of Icaronycteris index (PU [Princeton in several other microchiropterans (many 4 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 2877 Fig. 2. Ventral view ofbasicranium andjaws ofIcaronycteris cf. index; UW (University ofWyoming) 2244. Modified from Novacek (1985a). Symbols are: Co, cochlea; Ect, ectotympanic; Oa, orbicular apophysis of the malleus. For other symbols, see fig. 1. phyllostomids, some mormoopids [e.g., larger in modern microchiropterans than in Pteronotus macleayii] and some emballo- megachiropterans (Pye, 1966; Henson, 1970; nurids) the basioccipital is nearly as broad Novacek, 1980, 1 985a). In Icaronycteris only between the cochleae as is typically found in a rough estimate of cochlear dimensions can megachiropterans. Nevertheless, the basioc- be made
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The World at the Time of Messel: Conference Volume
    T. Lehmann & S.F.K. Schaal (eds) The World at the Time of Messel - Conference Volume Time at the The World The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment and the History of Early Primates 22nd International Senckenberg Conference 2011 Frankfurt am Main, 15th - 19th November 2011 ISBN 978-3-929907-86-5 Conference Volume SENCKENBERG Gesellschaft für Naturforschung THOMAS LEHMANN & STEPHAN F.K. SCHAAL (eds) The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment, and the History of Early Primates 22nd International Senckenberg Conference Frankfurt am Main, 15th – 19th November 2011 Conference Volume Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung IMPRINT The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment, and the History of Early Primates 22nd International Senckenberg Conference 15th – 19th November 2011, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Conference Volume Publisher PROF. DR. DR. H.C. VOLKER MOSBRUGGER Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Editors DR. THOMAS LEHMANN & DR. STEPHAN F.K. SCHAAL Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected]; [email protected] Language editors JOSEPH E.B. HOGAN & DR. KRISTER T. SMITH Layout JULIANE EBERHARDT & ANIKA VOGEL Cover Illustration EVELINE JUNQUEIRA Print Rhein-Main-Geschäftsdrucke, Hofheim-Wallau, Germany Citation LEHMANN, T. & SCHAAL, S.F.K. (eds) (2011). The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment, and the History of Early Primates. 22nd International Senckenberg Conference. 15th – 19th November 2011, Frankfurt am Main. Conference Volume. Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt am Main. pp. 203.
    [Show full text]
  • Inferring Echolocation in Ancient Bats Arising From: N
    NATURE | Vol 466 | 19 August 2010 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS ARISING Inferring echolocation in ancient bats Arising from: N. Veselka et al. Nature 463, 939–942 (2010) Laryngeal echolocation, used by most living bats to form images of O. finneyi falls outside the size range seen in living echolocating bats their surroundings and to detect and capture flying prey1,2, is con- and is similar to the proportionally smaller cochleae of bats that lack sidered to be a key innovation for the evolutionary success of bats2,3, laryngeal echolocation4,8, suggesting that it did not echolocate. and palaeontologists have long sought osteological correlates of echolocation that can be used to infer the behaviour of fossil bats4–7. Veselka et al.8 argued that the most reliable trait indicating echoloca- tion capabilities in bats is an articulation between the stylohyal bone (part of the hyoid apparatus that supports the throat and larynx) and a the tympanic bone, which forms the floor of the middle ear. They examined the oldest and most primitive known bat, Onychonycteris finneyi (early Eocene, USA4), and argued that it showed evidence of this stylohyal–tympanic articulation, from which they concluded that O. finneyi may have been capable of echolocation. We disagree with their interpretation of key fossil data and instead argue that O. finneyi was probably not an echolocating bat. The holotype of O. finneyi shows the cranial end of the left stylohyal resting on the tympanic bone (Fig. 1c–e). However, the stylohyal on the right side is in a different position, the tip of the stylohyal extends beyond the tympanic on both sides of the skull, and both tympanics are crushed.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of Jordan
    © Biologiezentrum Linz/Austria; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Mammals of Jordan Z. AMR, M. ABU BAKER & L. RIFAI Abstract: A total of 78 species of mammals belonging to seven orders (Insectivora, Chiroptera, Carni- vora, Hyracoidea, Artiodactyla, Lagomorpha and Rodentia) have been recorded from Jordan. Bats and rodents represent the highest diversity of recorded species. Notes on systematics and ecology for the re- corded species were given. Key words: Mammals, Jordan, ecology, systematics, zoogeography, arid environment. Introduction In this account we list the surviving mammals of Jordan, including some reintro- The mammalian diversity of Jordan is duced species. remarkable considering its location at the meeting point of three different faunal ele- Table 1: Summary to the mammalian taxa occurring ments; the African, Oriental and Palaearc- in Jordan tic. This diversity is a combination of these Order No. of Families No. of Species elements in addition to the occurrence of Insectivora 2 5 few endemic forms. Jordan's location result- Chiroptera 8 24 ed in a huge faunal diversity compared to Carnivora 5 16 the surrounding countries. It shelters a huge Hyracoidea >1 1 assembly of mammals of different zoogeo- Artiodactyla 2 5 graphical affinities. Most remarkably, Jordan Lagomorpha 1 1 represents biogeographic boundaries for the Rodentia 7 26 extreme distribution limit of several African Total 26 78 (e.g. Procavia capensis and Rousettus aegypti- acus) and Palaearctic mammals (e. g. Eri- Order Insectivora naceus concolor, Sciurus anomalus, Apodemus Order Insectivora contains the most mystacinus, Lutra lutra and Meles meles). primitive placental mammals. A pointed snout and a small brain case characterises Our knowledge on the diversity and members of this order.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)
    Chapter 6 Phylogenetic Relationships of Harpyionycterine Megabats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) NORBERTO P. GIANNINI1,2, FRANCISCA CUNHA ALMEIDA1,3, AND NANCY B. SIMMONS1 ABSTRACT After almost 70 years of stability following publication of Andersen’s (1912) monograph on the group, the systematics of megachiropteran bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) was thrown into flux with the advent of molecular phylogenetics in the 1980s—a state where it has remained ever since. One particularly problematic group has been the Austromalayan Harpyionycterinae, currently thought to include Dobsonia and Harpyionycteris, and probably also Aproteles.Inthis contribution we revisit the systematics of harpyionycterines. We examine historical hypotheses of relationships including the suggestion by O. Thomas (1896) that the rousettine Boneia bidens may be related to Harpyionycteris, and report the results of a series of phylogenetic analyses based on new as well as previously published sequence data from the genes RAG1, RAG2, vWF, c-mos, cytb, 12S, tVal, 16S,andND2. Despite a striking lack of morphological synapomorphies, results of our combined analyses indicate that Boneia groups with Aproteles, Dobsonia, and Harpyionycteris in a well-supported, expanded Harpyionycterinae. While monophyly of this group is well supported, topological changes within this clade across analyses of different data partitions indicate conflicting phylogenetic signals in the mitochondrial partition. The position of the harpyionycterine clade within the megachiropteran tree remains somewhat uncertain. Nevertheless, biogeographic patterns (vicariance-dispersal events) within Harpyionycterinae appear clear and can be directly linked to major biogeographic boundaries of the Austromalayan region. The new phylogeny of Harpionycterinae also provides a new framework for interpreting aspects of dental evolution in pteropodids (e.g., reduction in the incisor dentition) and allows prediction of roosting habits for Harpyionycteris, whose habits are unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • 103 the EVOLUTION of BATSI Leigh Van Valen Department Of
    103 THE EVOLUTIONOF BATSI Leigh Van Valen Department of Biology University of Chicago 1103 East 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 Received August 30, 1978; June 8, L979 Abstract: I devel-op the first explicitly Justified phylogeny of the known farnil-les of bats, usj.ng all available characters. This phylogeny permits the adaptive evolution of the order to be outlined. Two main clades emerge within the Microchiroptera and are cal-led new infraorders, Vespertilionia and Phyllostomatia. In each infraorder there is a series of grades of progressively stronger fi-ight, and there is a radiation of diet within the Phyllostomatia. Parallel evolution is extensive. Most grades stlll exist, presumably by a poorly understood partitioning of the resource space. The Megachiroptera nay have originated in the l-ate Ollgocene or early Miocene from surviving mernbers of the Eochiroptera (new suborder). The Kerivoul,ldae, Myzopodidae, Thyropteridae, and Furlpterldae are placed in the Natalidae, and the lcaronycterididae in the PaLaeochiropterygidae. The features of an ancestral bat are predicted. Bat origins are poorly known but may be found in Paleocene members of the Adapisoricidae. ,r** Bats constitute the second largest order of marnmalsand have a readily decipherable adaptive history, at least compared with the Rodentia and Insectivora. Nevertheless, there is no treatment of this adaptive hlstory nor even a general phyl-ogeny, which must form its foundation. I noticed this l-ack when revising a course on the paleobiology of mauunalsand undertook to remedy it. Although I sttll lack much familiarity with bats, the resul-t may be of more general interest. ORIGIN OF BATS One may hypothesize ttrat bats dld originate, but it is harder to go beyond this.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • Island Bats: Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation
    CHA P T E R 1 3 The Ecology and Conservation of Malagasy Bats Paul A. Racey, Steven M. Goodman, and Richard K. B. Jenkins Introduction Despite the important contribution that bats make to tropical biodiversity and ecosystem function, as well as the threatened status of many species, conserva­ tion initiatives for Madagascar’s endemic mammals have rarely included bats. Until recently, most mammalogical research in Madagascar concerned lemurs, rodents, and tenrecs. This focus resulted in a dearth of information on bat bi­ ology. However, since the mid­1990s considerable advancement has been made following the establishment of capacity­building programs for Malagasy bat biologists, and bats are now included in biodiversity surveys and a growing number of field studies are in progress. In this chapter we summarize the advances made in recent years in un­ derstanding the diversity of Malagasy bats and briefly describe their biogeo­ graphic affinities and levels of endemism. We draw attention to the importance of understanding the ecology of these animals and why this is a prerequisite to their conservation. In discussing monitoring and hunting, we highlight some of the reasons that make bat conservation notably different from other vertebrate conservation challenges on the island. The Diversity of Malagasy Bats The recent surge of interest in Malagasy bats has resulted in the discovery and description of nine new taxa on the island. The rate of new discoveries quickly makes statements on endemism and species richness out of date. For example, of the 37 bat taxa listed for Madagascar in table 13.1, only 29 were treated in the 2005 Global Mammal Assessment in Antananarivo.
    [Show full text]
  • Bunkers Bunkers
    2 BATS AND FLOWERS WHY KATYDIDS IN 0 C IN AN EVOLUTIONARY RACE STOP THEIR SINGING A 0 LU N 8 D N ES UA -2 L R 0 E 0 PO R 9 WWW.BATCO N.ORG FALL 2009 T BBBAT CONSAAERVATIOTNT INTERNASS TIONAL BAinT thS e BBUUNNKKEERRSS Volume 27, No. 3, fall 2009 P.O. Box 162603 , Austin, Texas 78716 BATS (512) 327-9721 • Fax (512) 327-9724 FEATURES Publications Staff Director of Publications: Robert Locke Photo Editor: Meera Banta 1 Going to Great Lengths Graphic Artist: Jason Huerta Bats & flowers stage an evolutionary race Copyeditors: Angela England, Valerie Locke BATS welcomes queries from writers. Send your article pro - by Nathan Muchhala posal with a brief outline and a description of any photos to the address above or via email to: [email protected] . Members: Please send changes of address and all cor res - 4 Singing Bat Detectors pondence to the address above or via email to members@bat - con.org . Please include your label, if possible, and allow six Katydids know when to shut up weeks for the change of address. by Hannah ter Hofstede Founder/President Emeritus: Dr. Merlin D. Tuttle Board of Trustees: Executive Committee: 7 Bats along the Jordan River John D. Mitchell, Chair Bert Grantges, Secretary Military bunkers are becoming bat houses Marshall T. Steves, Jr., Treasurer by Eran Levin Jeff Acopian; Anne-Louise Band; Eugenio Clariond Reyes; Bettina Mathis; Sandy Read; Walter C. Sedgwick; Marc Weinberger. 11 Softening the Blow Advisory Trustees: Sharon R. Forsyth; Elizabeth Ames Jones; Travis Mathis; Wilhelmina Robertson; William New wind-energy research could help reduce bat kills Scanlan, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Messel Pit – Wikipedia Germany
    03/08/2018 Messel pit - Wikipedia Coordinates: 49°55′03″N 8°45′24″E Messel pit The Messel Pit (German: Grube Messel) is a disused quarry near the Messel Pit Fossil Site village of Messel, (Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg, Hesse) about 35 km (22 mi) southeast of Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Bituminous shale UNESCO World Heritage site was mined there. Because of its abundance of fossils, it has significant geological and scientific importance. After almost becoming a landfill, strong local resistance eventually stopped these plans and the Messel Pit was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site on 9 December 1995. Significant scientific discoveries are still being made and the site has increasingly become a tourist site as well. Contents Location Darmstadt-Dieburg, History Hesse, Germany Depositional characteristics Criteria Natural: (viii) Volcanic gas releases Reference 720bis (http://whc.unesco. Fossils org/en/list/720bis) Mammals Inscription 1995 (19th Session) Birds Reptiles Extensions 2010 Fish Area 42 ha (4,500,000 sq ft) Insects Plants Buffer zone 22.5 ha (2,420,000 sq ft) Access Coordinates 49°55′03″N 8°45′24″E See also References External links History Brown coal and later oil shale was actively mined from 1859. The pit first became known for its wealth of fossils around 1900, but serious scientific excavation only started around the 1970s, when falling oil prices made the quarry uneconomical. Commercial oil shale mining ceased in 1971 and a cement factory built in the quarry failed the following year. The land was slotted for use as a landfill, but the plans came to nought and the Hessian state bought the site in 1991 to secure scientific access.
    [Show full text]
  • To Scream Or to Listen? Prey Detection and Discrimination in Animal-Eating Bats
    96 P.L. Jones et al. Fig. 4.1 Current phylogeny for bats (Jones and Teeling 2006 ). To the right of each family name, a Substrate Gleaner icon indicates that, in our opinion, this family is characterized by bat species that rely primarily on a gleaning strategy; all or most of which also take some prey by aerial hawk- ing. An Aerial Hawker icon indicates that the family consists of species most of which primarily use a hawking strategy but includes behaviorally fl exible species. Crasoenycteridae comprises a single behaviorally fl exible species. A Frugivore/Nectivore icon indicates a family comprised solely or partially of frugivorous and nectivorous species Each scenario, however, still suggests the same general story (Figure 4.1 ). That is, early laryngeal echolocating bats used powered fl ight, hunted animals, and took them in the air. The latter supposition is supported by the fact that most early fossil bats (~50 million years old) had wing designs suited for aerially hawking and not 4 Prey Detection and Discrimination in Animal-Eating Bats 97 like those of modern gleaners (Simmons and Geisler 1998 ; Safi et al. 2005 ). Therefore, we suppose that while something akin to gleaning may have characterized proto-bats and the very earliest of bats, this trait may have been subsequently lost, at least as a primary means of prey capture, as bats evolved more sophisticated laryngeal echolocation and longer, narrower wings, and then gleaning evolved inde- pendently again multiple times (Simmons and Geisler 1998 ) (Figure 4.1 ). However, while this idea is supported by fossil evidence (Simmons and Geisler 1998 ) and phylogenetic trait reconstructions (Safi et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Fossil and Molecular Data Reconstruct Bat Echolocation
    Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation Mark S. Springer†‡, Emma C. Teeling†§, Ole Madsen¶, Michael J. Stanhope§ʈ, and Wilfried W. de Jong¶** †Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521; §Queen’s University of Belfast, Biology and Biochemistry, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, United Kingdom; ¶Department of Biochemistry, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; ʈBioinformatics, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, 1250 South Collegeville Road, UP1345, Collegeville, PA 19426; and **Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, 1090 GT Amsterdam, The Netherlands Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved March 26, 2001 (received for review November 21, 2000) Molecular and morphological data have important roles in illumi- tulates a sister-group relationship between flying lemurs and bats nating evolutionary history. DNA data often yield well resolved (6). Although some authors have questioned bat monophyly phylogenies for living taxa, but are generally unattainable for based on evidence from the penis and nervous system (7, 8), the fossils. A distinct advantage of morphology is that some types of bulk of morphological data supports bat monophyly (9). Among morphological data may be collected for extinct and extant taxa. living Chiroptera, morphological data provide strong support for Fossils provide a unique window on evolutionary history and may the reciprocal monophyly of megachiropterans (Old World fruit preserve combinations
    [Show full text]
  • Little Brown Bat (Myotis Lucifugus) BAC Library
    Proposal for the construction of a Little Brown Bat (Myotis Lucifugus) BAC Library Russell Ray and Mario Capecchi, Dept of Human Genetics, University of Utah, Salt Lakc City, Utah. The importance of Myotis lucifugus to biomedical and biological research Bats have acquired a number of evolutionary innovations in adapting to their particular niche. Microbats such as Myotis lucifugus have a number of interesting features including heavily modified limbs, the ability to echolocate, precise control over both thermoregulation and gestation, and an unexpectedly long life span. Many of the unique structures in bats have not arisen de novo, but are highly modified homologous structures found among other mammals. A good example is the bat forelimb. Despite the gross changes in morphology required for flight, the bat forelimb has maintained the basic pentadactyl skeletal elements in its wing. However, these bones have changed dramatically, having been elongated and reduced in girth, while tissue that is normally eliminated between the digits persists to form the different patagium (membranes forming the wings)(Adams 1992). The development of such marked evolutionary innovations is of great interest to our laboratory and many others. Understanding limb development in bats will be informative towards the basic mechanisms important in limb length determination and in the fate of interdigit tissues, both of which are key in human limb development and are often corrupted in limb malformations. One important aspect to an understanding of the mechanisms used in evolution is the differential regulation of genes held in common among mammals. An obvious but untested hypothesis is that elaboration of homologous structures in bats resulted from changes in regulatory elements for genes governing these structures.
    [Show full text]