S. Thomson, N. R. Friol, A. White, D. Wedd, A. Georges
{"title":"重新审视澳大利亚海湾鳄龟——晚更新世的化石物种存在吗?","authors":"S. Thomson, N. R. Friol, A. White, D. Wedd, A. Georges","doi":"10.3897/vz.73.e99495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disagreement exists on the taxonomic identity of the extant populations of the Australian Elseya referred to in 1992 as the gulf Elseya (= Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson]). The extant form has since 1997 been considered conspecific with the late Pleistocene fossil Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994). Recently it has been considered a new species, Elseya oneirosJoseph-Ouni et al., 2020, conspecific with another fossil found in the same site and stratum as Elseya lavarackorum. Here we re-examine the fossil material and reassess the characters used by previous authors in an attempt to decide the issue. We find that the anterior bridge suture with the carapace of the fossil Elseya lavarackorum is associated with extensive and prominent plastral elements, which has led to misinterpretation of characters associated with this structure. We furthermore show that interindividual variation in sulci patterns is so great as to render them of little taxonomic value. On the basis of (a) deviation of the anterior shape of the carapace from ovoid such that, in aged individuals, the most anterior point of the carapace occurs at marginal scutes M2 (a resultant nuchal bay occurs in such individuals); (b) the typical absence of a cervical scute; (c) no evidence of a medial constriction in the anterior bridge strut suture; and (d) absence of evidence of any other informative variation of taxonomic value; we conclude that the decision to consider the late Pleistocene (ca 23 kyr old) fossil and the extant Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson] as Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994) as conspecific should stand.","PeriodicalId":51290,"journal":{"name":"Vertebrate Zoology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Australian gulf snapping turtle Elseya lavarackorum (Testudines: Chelidae) revisited—Is the late Pleistocene fossil species extant?\",\"authors\":\"S. Thomson, N. R. Friol, A. White, D. Wedd, A. Georges\",\"doi\":\"10.3897/vz.73.e99495\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Disagreement exists on the taxonomic identity of the extant populations of the Australian Elseya referred to in 1992 as the gulf Elseya (= Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson]). The extant form has since 1997 been considered conspecific with the late Pleistocene fossil Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994). Recently it has been considered a new species, Elseya oneirosJoseph-Ouni et al., 2020, conspecific with another fossil found in the same site and stratum as Elseya lavarackorum. Here we re-examine the fossil material and reassess the characters used by previous authors in an attempt to decide the issue. We find that the anterior bridge suture with the carapace of the fossil Elseya lavarackorum is associated with extensive and prominent plastral elements, which has led to misinterpretation of characters associated with this structure. We furthermore show that interindividual variation in sulci patterns is so great as to render them of little taxonomic value. On the basis of (a) deviation of the anterior shape of the carapace from ovoid such that, in aged individuals, the most anterior point of the carapace occurs at marginal scutes M2 (a resultant nuchal bay occurs in such individuals); (b) the typical absence of a cervical scute; (c) no evidence of a medial constriction in the anterior bridge strut suture; and (d) absence of evidence of any other informative variation of taxonomic value; we conclude that the decision to consider the late Pleistocene (ca 23 kyr old) fossil and the extant Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson] as Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994) as conspecific should stand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vertebrate Zoology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vertebrate Zoology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.73.e99495\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ZOOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vertebrate Zoology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.73.e99495","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
在1992年被称为海湾Elseya(=Elseya sp.aff.dentata[Nicholson])的澳大利亚Elseya现存种群的分类身份上存在分歧。自1997年以来,现存的形态一直被认为与更新世晚期的Elseya lavarackorum化石是同种的(White和Archer,1994)。最近,它被认为是一个新物种,Elseya oneirosJoseph Ouni et al.,2020,与在与Elseya lavarackorum相同的地点和地层中发现的另一个化石同种。在这里,我们重新审视化石材料,并重新评估前几位作者在试图决定这个问题时使用的人物。我们发现,与Elseya lavarackorum化石外壳的前桥缝合线与广泛而突出的质体元素有关,这导致了对与该结构相关的特征的误解。我们进一步表明,脑沟模式的个体间差异如此之大,以至于它们几乎没有分类学价值。基于(a)甲壳的前部形状与卵球形的偏差,使得在老年个体中,甲壳的最前部点出现在边缘盾片M2处(在这样的个体中出现由此产生的珠心湾);(b) 典型的颈部无鳞甲;(c) 在前桥支柱缝线中没有内侧收缩的证据;和(d)没有任何其他分类价值的信息性变化的证据;我们得出的结论是,考虑更新世晚期(约23千年前)化石和现存的Elseya sp.aff的决定。齿塔[Nicholson]作为Elseya lavarackorum(White和Archer,1994)作为同种应该成立。
The Australian gulf snapping turtle Elseya lavarackorum (Testudines: Chelidae) revisited—Is the late Pleistocene fossil species extant?
Disagreement exists on the taxonomic identity of the extant populations of the Australian Elseya referred to in 1992 as the gulf Elseya (= Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson]). The extant form has since 1997 been considered conspecific with the late Pleistocene fossil Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994). Recently it has been considered a new species, Elseya oneirosJoseph-Ouni et al., 2020, conspecific with another fossil found in the same site and stratum as Elseya lavarackorum. Here we re-examine the fossil material and reassess the characters used by previous authors in an attempt to decide the issue. We find that the anterior bridge suture with the carapace of the fossil Elseya lavarackorum is associated with extensive and prominent plastral elements, which has led to misinterpretation of characters associated with this structure. We furthermore show that interindividual variation in sulci patterns is so great as to render them of little taxonomic value. On the basis of (a) deviation of the anterior shape of the carapace from ovoid such that, in aged individuals, the most anterior point of the carapace occurs at marginal scutes M2 (a resultant nuchal bay occurs in such individuals); (b) the typical absence of a cervical scute; (c) no evidence of a medial constriction in the anterior bridge strut suture; and (d) absence of evidence of any other informative variation of taxonomic value; we conclude that the decision to consider the late Pleistocene (ca 23 kyr old) fossil and the extant Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson] as Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994) as conspecific should stand.
期刊介绍:
Research fields covered by VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY are taxonomy, morphology, anatomy, phylogeny (molecular and morphology-based), historical biogeography, and palaeontology of vertebrates.