The Plio-Pleistocene record of Hypolagus (Lagomorpha, Leporidae) from the Czech and Slovak Republics with comments on systematics and classification of the genus

Čermák, Stanislav

doi:10.3140/bull.geosci.1104

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…'This species includes all populations that cluster with those from the Togo Hills included in this study with strong support in the Bayesian species delimitation model'). Although geographical location could be argued to be an organismal attribute, (i) Article 12.3 and, by implication, Article 13.1 [3] clarify that the mention of a locality does not in itself constitute a description, and (ii) Leaché & Fujita [1] have not actually used locality as a character, but as an indicator of the cluster to which populations belong. The new names they propose thus lack definitions or descriptions of organismal attributes (characters) as required by the Code and their diagnoses consist solely of extrinsic relational statements about populations.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability of new Bayesian-delimited gecko names and the importance of character-based species descriptions

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CommentAvailability of new Bayesian-delimited gecko names and the importance of character-based species descriptions Leaché & Fujita [1] present an empirical example of Bayesian species delimitation (BSD; [2]) to recognize three new species of African geckos from within the range of the widespread taxon Hemidactylus fasciatus, Gray 1842. As with any new method, BSD will undoubtedly generate questions and discussions about its practicality and assumptions. However, the use of this method of delimiting species does not obviate the need to adhere to the practice of describing or defining species on the basis of intrinsic characters.In order for any species name in zoology to be available, it must satisfy the applicable provisions of Articles 11 -20 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) (hereafter 'the Code'). Relevant to this issue, 'To be available, every new name published after 1930 . . . must be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon (Article 13.1.1, p. 17)' where a character is 'any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa' (Glossary, p. 101). Leaché & Fujita [1] do not provide descriptions or definitions for their new taxa, only putative diagnoses (recommended but not required under the Code (Recommendation 13A)), and these are based not upon characters but upon degree of support under their species delimitation model (e.g. 'This species includes all populations that cluster with those from the Togo Hills included in this study with strong support in the Bayesian species delimitation model'). Although geographical location could be argued to be an organismal attribute, (i) Article 12.3 and, by implication, Article 13.1 [3] clarify that the mention of a locality does not in itself constitute a description, and (ii) Leaché & Fujita [1] have not actually used locality as a character, but as an indicator of the cluster to which populations belong. The new names they propose thus lack definitions or descriptions of organismal attributes (characters) as required by the Code and their diagnoses consist solely of extrinsic relational statements about populations. The new names proposed for members of the H. fasciatus group (Hemidactylus coalescens, Hemidactylus eniangii, Hemidactylus kyaboboensis) fail to conform to Article 13 and are nomina nuda, and thus unavailable under the Code.The diagnoses of their new species are similar to the definitions of clade names under phylogenetic taxonomy, but their species descriptions are also unavailable under the PhyloCode [4], which defers to 'provisions of the appropriate rank-based code (e.g. . . . ICZN)' for species availability.The unavailability of Leaché and Fujita's gecko names rests on more than a technicality. We emphasize this point to highlight the very purpose of the taxonomic protocols inherent in the Code's adherence to character-based species definitions. The application of Leaché & Fujita's approach would no doubt fac...

show abstract

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability of new Bayesian-delimited gecko names and the importance of character-based species descriptions

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…*Hyp olagus petenyii Čermák and Fladerer in Čermák, 2009 from Hosťovce 2 (SK), Ivanovce 1 (SK), Měňany 3 (CZ)—Pliocene (late Ruscinian–early Villányian, MN 15b–16a); collections: temporarily in the Institute of Geology of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Prague).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematics and paleobiogeography of Sardolagus obscurus n. gen. n. sp. (Leporidae, Lagomorpha) from the early Pleistocene of Sardinia

Angelone¹,

Čermák²,

Moncunill-Solé³

et al. 2018

J. Paleontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extreme rareness of Sardinian fossil sites older than Middle and Late Pleistocene makes the Monte Tuttavista karst complex (E Sardinia, Italy) very important. Remarkable lagomorph material, recovered from several fissure infillings of Monte Tuttavista referable to the Capo Figari/Orosei 1 and Orosei 2 faunal sub-complexes (early Pleistocene, ~2.1/1.9–1.1 Ma), allowed us to describe a new endemic insular leporid, Sardolagus obscurus n. gen. n. sp. The new taxon is characterized by a peculiar combination of an advanced p3 (Lepus-type) and a primitive P2 lacking deep flexa. The origin of such discrepancy, unprecedented among continental and insular endemic European leporids, is unclear. It could be the result of: (1) an independent evolution of p3 from an ancestor bearing the primitive P2/p3 (e.g., Alilepus, Hypolagus), or (2) a selective reversal morphocline from an Oryctolagus/Lepus-like leporine. The lack of data about the phylogenetic origin of the new taxon makes any inference about its possible arrival to Sardinia problematic. Crossing the European leporid records and evidence of migrations to Sardinia, we hypothesize three possible ages in which the ancestor of Sardolagus obscurus could have arrived in Sardinia, restricted to the late Miocene–early/late Pliocene (~8–3.6 Ma). The phylogenetic relationship between Sardolagus obscurus n. gen. n. sp. and the oldest Sardinian leporid, recorded from Capo Mannu D1 and dated at the early/late Pliocene boundary (~3.6 Ma), is unclear at present, however it is quite likely that they pertain to the same lineage.UUID: http://zoobank.org/ca8e0023-7c9d-4b00-a294-d166c37c5c71

show abstract

“…Patnaik's () spline analysis of leporid p3 evolution places Hypolagus on a different trajectory of morphological change than that of Alilepus . The distinction of Eurasian Hypolagus from other leporids and the similarity to some older North American species of Hypolagus suggest that more than one advanced leporid crossed Beringia from North America (Čermák ). Because currently known Hypolagus fossils postdate the earliest remains of Alilepus , we suggest that Hypolagus may have been a later immigrant (Fig.…”

Section: Late Miocene Leporid Localities In the Old Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

TheLeporidDatum: a lateMiocene biotic marker

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas) have a long evolutionary history in Eurasia and Africa, including primitive genera of Eurasia historically considered assignable at the family level to Leporidae, the predecessors of modern rabbits were absent throughout this vast region for most of the Miocene until late in that epoch. During the early and middle Miocene, crown group Leporidae differentiated in North America, then dispersed to northern Asia in the late Miocene around 8 Ma (million years before present) and afterward. They then spread widely and apparently rapidly throughout Eurasia, reaching South Asia by 7.4 Ma and penetrating Africa about 7 Ma. The apparently abrupt introduction of Leporidae is a striking late Miocene event that we call the Leporid Datum. Perceived in terms of biochrons, the Leporid Datum includes localities in Europe and western Asia of late MN11 (Mammifères Néogènes system) age and younger, and precedes by less than one million years the Bahean‐Baodean land mammal age boundary in China. The late Miocene spread of Leporidae throughout Eurasia was a successful invasion in terms of the numerous occurrences and abundant fossils preserved. Where dating is sufficiently robust, the Leporid Datum is late Miocene, nowhere certainly more than ∼8 Ma. In contrast to this sudden and widespread invasion, rare older finds suggest two possible refinements to this scenario: stem lagomorphs close to modern Leporidae may have lingered into the middle Miocene of Eurasia, or an independent, unsuccessful leporid invasion from North America may have preceded the 8 Ma datum. The Leporid Datum marks an important palaeoecological event for the Old World and complements the significance of molecular dates for origins of modern genera.

show abstract

The Plio-Pleistocene record of Hypolagus (Lagomorpha, Leporidae) from the Czech and Slovak Republics with comments on systematics and classification of the genus

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

Availability of new Bayesian-delimited gecko names and the importance of character-based species descriptions

Availability of new Bayesian-delimited gecko names and the importance of character-based species descriptions

Systematics and paleobiogeography of Sardolagus obscurus n. gen. n. sp. (Leporidae, Lagomorpha) from the early Pleistocene of Sardinia

TheLeporidDatum: a lateMiocene biotic marker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About