New proviverrines (Hyaenodontida) from the early Eocene of Europe; phylogeny and ecological evolution of the Proviverrinae

Abstract

We describe six proviverrine species from the Early Eocene of France. Three species are new: Minimovellentodon russelli sp. nov. from Mutigny [mammal palaeogene (MP)8 + 9], Boritia duffaudi sp. nov. from La Borie (MP8 + 9), and Leonhardtina godinoti sp. nov. from Grauves (MP10). We describe new specimens and propose new generic combinations for three species from MP10: Protoproviverra palaeonictides, Matthodon menui, and Oxyaenoides lindgreni. We also propose a new generic combination for the primitive Eoproviverra eisenmanni (MP7). Matthodon menui was previously considered as a possible oxyaenodontan, but the new fossils clearly support its reference to Hyaenodontida. Leonhardtina godinoti and Ma. menui are the oldest occurrences for these genera, which were previously unknown before the Middle Eocene. Moreover, the discovery of the proviverrine Mi. russelli in Mutigny implies that the Proviverrinae dispersed in Northern Europe between biozone Palaeocene‐Eocene (PE) III (Abbey Wood) and biozone PE IV (Mutigny). This also supports a homogenization of the European faunas during the Early Eocene. The dispersal is concomitant with the disappearance of the oxyaenodontans, arfiines, and sinopines (Hyaenodontida) from Europe. The proviverrines may have filled the ecological niches left vacant by the disappearance of the other carnivorous mammals. With 20 genera and over 30 species, proviverrines were successful in Europe. We performed the first phylogenetic analysis comprising almost all the Proviverrinae. Our analyses indicate that the Proviverrinae diversified greatly during the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum and show a general trend towards specialization throughout the Eocene. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London

Hyainailourine and teratodontine cranial material from the late Eocene of Egypt and the application of parsimony and Bayesian methods to the phylogeny and biogeography of Hyaenodonta (Placentalia, Mammalia)

“…Tinerhodon was considered by McKenna & Bell (1997) to be part of Cimolestidae, but Gheerbrant et al (2006) disputed its cimolestid affinities, suggesting that it was a basal hyaenodont based on comparisons to Boualitomus . Subsequent studies (Solé, 2013; Solé, Falconnet & Yves, 2014; Solé et al, 2014; Solé et al, 2015) found Tinerhodon to be the sister group of Hyaenodonta while Rana et al (2015) found Tinerhodon to be the sister taxon of Lahimia + Boualitomus , a clade that occupied multiple positions in their analysis. None of the analyses performed here recover Lahimia and Boualitomus in such a basal position, and none place Tinerhodon as the sister taxon to Hyaenodonta to the exclusion of Altacreodus.…”

“…A close relationship between Hyaenodontinae and some European proviverrines was first demonstrated by Polly (1996) when Eurotherium was resolved as the sister taxon to Propterodon + Hyaenodon . Contra Solé (2013) and Solé, Falconnet & Yves (2014) who found Proviverra and Eurotherium were part of a monophyletic Proviverrinae, Polly (1996) proposed Proviverra as the sister taxon to all more deeply nested hyaenodonts and Eurotherium as closely related to Propterodon and Hyaenodon . Rana et al (2015) were the first to include Propterodon and Hyaenodon in a phylogenetic analysis since Polly (1996); they also included many more proviverrines than Polly (1996) and found a monophyletic, entirely European Proviverrinae as the sister clade to Hyaenodontinae.…”

“…Solé (2013) and Solé, Falconnet & Yves (2014) proposed multiple clades within “proviverrines” including Sinopinae (including Sinopa , Prototomus , Tritemnodon , and Galecyon ), Arfiinae (synonymous with the genus Arfia ), and Proviverrinae. Rana et al (2015) did not recover a monophyletic Sinopinae, instead placing Prototomus as a group that is paraphyletic with respect to all non-arfianine, non-limnocyonine hyaenodonts; the remaining “sinopanines” were placed as basal stem members of a Hyaenodontinae + Proviverrinae clade.…”

“…These analyses were also intended to test existing hypotheses about relationships among multiple recently proposed hyaenodont clades (e.g., Polly, 1996; Egi et al, 2005; Solé, 2013; Solé, Falconnet & Yves, 2014; Solé et al, 2014; Solé et al, 2015; Rana et al, 2015) with new character data. Of particular interest for this study are the structure of, and relationships within, Teratodontinae, Hyainailourinae, and Hyaenodontinae, the latter clade having only been incorporated into two other cladistic analyses (Polly, 1996; Rana et al, 2015) with an in-group expanded beyond Hyaenodon (note that Bastl, Nagel & Peigné (2014) limited their analysis to evaluation of the genus Hyaenodon ).…”

“…More recent phylogenetic studies have focused on specific lineages within Hyaenodonta—Limnocyoninae (Morlo & Gunnell, 2003), Afro-Arabian and Asian proviverrines (Egi et al, 2005), early North American and European proviverrines (Zack, 2011; Zack & Rose, 2015), possible relatives of Apterodon (Grohé et al, 2012), European and North American proviverrines (Solé, 2013; Solé, Falconnet & Yves, 2014), and Hyainailourinae (Solé et al, 2015)—but each of these studies was limited in its biogeographic scope, and restricted its character sample primarily to dental morphology (Solé (2013) incorporated one cranial character and 14 postcranial characters into his study). This restriction is understandable because much of the hyaenodont record is composed of isolated dentaries, rostral fragments, and isolated teeth, and the inclusion of cranial and postcranial characters leaves a great deal of missing data, though simulation studies have shown that missing data is less problematic than might be expected (Wiens, 2003; Kearney & Clark, 2003; Wiens & Moen, 2008; Prevosti & Chemisquy, 2010).…”