No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2016
Abstract
Skeletal remains of Eocene Archaeoceti provide the only direct and unequivocal evidence of the evolutionary transition of whales from land to sea. Archaeocete skeletons complete enough to be informative about locomotion are rare (principally Rodhocetus and Dorudon), and these deserve to be studied in comparison to the full spectrum of semiaquatic mammals. A principal components analysis of 14 trunk and limb measurements for 50 species of living semiaquatic mammals reduces the observed variation to three informative axes. The first principal axis (PC-I) represents overall size (water mice and shrews have the lowest scores on this axis and the hippopotamus has the highest); the second axis (PC-II) represents a spectrum of aquatic adaptation (seals have the lowest scores and tapirs have the highest); and the third principal axis (PC-III) represents a spectrum ranging from hindlimb- to forelimb-dominated locomotion (sea otters have the lowest scores and the platypus the highest).
Dorudon fits poorly into a morphospace defined solely by living semiaquatic mammals; thus a second 53-species set was analyzed, adding an anthracothere to represent an artiodactyl ancestral morphology and two species of archaeocetes to represent successive stages of early whale evolution. This addition has little effect on the first two principal axes but changes the third substantially. PC-III now represents a contrast of lumbus- (and presumably tail-) dominated versus hindlimb-dominated locomotion (Dorudon has the lowest score and Rodhocetus the highest, whereas the otter shrew has the lowest score among living mammals and the desman the highest). Mammals that are more aquatic have a shorter ilium and femur combined with longer manual and pedal phalanges, whereas the reverse is true for more terrestrial taxa. Lumbus- and tail-dominated swimmers tend to have a longer lumbus combined with shorter pedal elements, whereas the reverse is true for hindlimb-dominated swimmers. Trunk and limb proportions of early middle Eocene Rodhocetus are most similar to those of the living, highly aquatic, foot-powered desmans. Trunk and limb proportions of late middle Eocene Dorudon indicate that it was a lumbus-and-tail-powered swimmer specialized in the direction of modern whales. Thus it appears that the land-to-sea transition in whale evolution involved at least two distinct phases of locomotor specialization: (1) hindlimb domination for drag-based pelvic paddling in protocetids (Rodhocetus), with tail elongation for stability, followed by (2) lumbus domination for lift-based caudal undulation and oscillation in basilosaurids (Dorudon). Rates of evolution in both phases of this change of adaptive zone are about an order of magnitude higher than background rates for the timescale involved.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Literature Cited
Allen, J. A. 1880. History of North American pinnipeds: a monograph of the walruses, sea-lions, sea-bears, and seals of North America. In U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, Hayden, F. V., Geologist-in-Charge, Miscellaneous Publications 12:1–785.Google Scholar
Bajpai, S., and Gingerich, P. D. 1998. A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:15464–15468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Swisher, C. C., and Aubry, M.-P. 1995. A revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy. In Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Aubry, M.-P., and Hardenbol, J. A., eds. Geochronology, time scales and global stratigraphic correlations: a unified temporal framework for an historical geology. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Volume 54:129–212.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Dobson, G. E. 1882. A monograph of the Insectivora, systematic and anatomical. Van Voorst, London.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F. 1981. The mammalian radiations: an analysis of trends in evolution, adaptation, and behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Fish, F. E. 1982. Function of the compressed tail of surface swimming muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus). Journal of Mammalogy 63:591–597.Google Scholar
Fish, F. E. 1996. Transitions from drag-based to lift-based propulsion in mammalian swimming. American Zoologist 36:628–641.Google Scholar
Fish, F. E. 2000. Biomechanics and energetics in aquatic and semiaquatic mammals: platypus to whale. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 73:683–698.Google Scholar
Fish, F. E. 2001. A mechanism for evolutionary transition in swimming mode by mammals. Pp. 261–287in Mazin, J.-M. and Buffrénil, V. d., eds. Secondary adaptation of tetrapods to life in water. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Flower, W. H. 1883a. On whales, past and present, and their probable origin. Notices of the Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, London 10:360–376.Google Scholar
Flower, W. H. 1883b. Cetacea. Pp. 391–400in Baynes, T. S., ed. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.A. and C. Black, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fordyce, R. E., and Barnes, L. G. 1994. The evolutionary history of whales and dolphins. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 22:419–455.Google Scholar
Fordyce, R. E., and de Muizon, C. 2001. Evolutionary history of cetaceans: a review. Pp. 169–233in Mazin, J.-M. and de Buffrénil, V., eds. Secondary adaptation of tetrapods to life in water. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Fraas, E. 1904. Neue Zeuglodonten aus dem unteren Mitteleocän vom Mokattam bei Cairo. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen, Jena 6:197–220.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1992. Marine mammals (Cetacea and Sirenia) from the Eocene of Gebel Mokattam and Fayum, Egypt: stratigraphy, age, and paleoenvironments. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 30:1–84.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1998. Paleobiological perspectives on Mesonychia, Archaeoceti, and the origin of whales. Pp. 423–449in Thewissen, J. G. M., ed. Emergence of whales: evolutionary patterns in the origin of Cetacea. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 2000. Arithmetic or geometric normality of biological variation: an empirical test of theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology 204:201–221.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 2001. Rates of evolution on the time scale of the evolutionary process. In Hendry, A. P. and Kinnison, M. T., eds. Contemporary microevolution: rate, pattern, and process. Genetica 112/113:127–144.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 2003. Stratigraphic and micropaleontologic constraints on the middle Eocene age of the mammal-bearing Kuldana Formation of Pakistan. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (in press).Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., and Russell, D. E. 1981. Pakicetus inachus, a new archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the early-middle Eocene Kuldana Formation of Kohat (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 25:235–246.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., and Uhen, M. D. 1996. Ancalecetus simonsi, a new dorudontine archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the early late Eocene of Wadi Hitan, Egypt. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 29:359–401.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., and Uhen, M. D. 1998. Likelihood estimation of the time of origin of Cetacea and the time of divergence of Cetacea and Artiodactyla. Palaeontologia Electronica 1(2):1–45 [http://palaeo-electronica.org/1998-2/ging_uhen/issue2.htm].Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., Wells, N. A., Russell, D. E., and Shah, S. M. I. 1983. Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan. Science 220:403–406.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., Smith, B. H., and Simons, E. L. 1990. Hind limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus isis: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, P. D., Raza, S. M., Arif, M., Anwar, M., and Zhou, X. 1994. New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming. Nature 368:844–847.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., Haq, M., Zalmout, I. S., Khan, I. H., and Malkani, M. S. 2001a. Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293:2239–2242.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., Haq, M., Khan, I. H., and Zalmout, I. S. 2001b. Eocene stratigraphy and archaeocete whales (Mammalia, Cetacea) of Drug Lahar in the eastern Sulaiman Range, Balochistan (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 30:269–319.Google Scholar
Hearne, S. 1795. A journey from Prince of Wale's fort, in Hudson's Bay, to the northern ocean. Strahan, A. and Cadell, T., London.Google Scholar
Heyning, J. E., and Lento, G. M. 2002. The evolution of marine mammals. Pp. 38–72in Hoelzel, A. R., ed. Marine mammal biology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hickman, G. C. 1983. Influence of the semiaquatic habit in determining burrow structure of the star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata). Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:1688–1692.Google Scholar
Hulbert, R. C., Petkewich, R. M., Bishop, G. A., Bukry, D., and Aleshire, D. P. 1998. A new middle Eocene protocetid whale (Mammalia: Cetacea: Archaeoceti) and associated biota from Georgia. Journal of Paleontology 72:907–927.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. 1936. A review of the Archaeoceti. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publications 482:1–366.Google Scholar
Kron, D. G., and Manning, E. M. 1998. Anthracotheriidae. Pp. 381–388in Janis, C. M., Scott, K. M., and Jacobs, L. L., eds. Evolution of Tertiary mammals of North America, Vol. I. Terrestrial carnivores, ungulates, and ungulatelike mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kükenthal, W. G. 1890. Ueber die Anpassung von Saügethieren an das Leben im Wasser. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Systematik, Geographic und Biologie der Tiere, Jena 5:373–399.Google Scholar
Kükenthal, W. G. 1891. On the adaptation of mammals to aquatic life. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 7:153–179.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1966. On the measurement of relative variability. Systematic Zoology 15:141–142.Google Scholar
Luo, Z., and Gingerich, P. D. 1999. Terrestrial Mesonychia to aquatic Cetacea: transformation of the basicranium and evolution of hearing in whales. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 31:1–98.Google Scholar
Madar, S. I., Thewissen, J. G. M., and Hussain, S. T. 2002. Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:405–422.Google Scholar
Manly, B. F. J. 1994. Multivariate statistical methods: a primer, 2d ed.Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Nishiwaki, M., and Kamiya, T. 1959. Mesoplodon stejnegeri from the coast of Japan. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo 14:35–48.Google Scholar
Nowak, R. M. 1999. Walker's mammals of the world, 6th ed. Vols. 1, 2. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Omura, H. 1975. Osteological study of the minke whale from the Antarctic. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo 27:1–36.Google Scholar
Osburn, R. C. 1903. Adaptation to aquatic, arboreal, fossorial and cursorial habits in mammals. I. Aquatic adaptations. American Naturalist 37:651–665.Google Scholar
Palmeirim, J. M., and Hoffmann, R. S. 1983. Galemys pyrenaicus. Mammalian Species 207:1–5.Google Scholar
Piérard, J. 1971. Osteology and myology of the Weddell seal Leptonychotes weddelli (Lesson, 1826). In Burt, W. H., ed. Antarctic Pinnipedia. Antarctic Research Series 18:53–108.Google Scholar
Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A., and Vetterling, W. T. 1989. Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing (Fortran version). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Scott, W. B. 1894. The structure and relationships of Ancodus. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 9:461–497.Google Scholar
Scott, W. B. 1940. The mammalian fauna of the White River Oligocene, Part IV. Artiodactyla. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 28:363–746.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and mode in evolution. Reprint, 1984, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stein, B. R. 1988. Morphology and allometry in several genera of semiaquatic rodents (Ondatra, Nectomys, and Oryzomys). Journal of Mammalogy 69:500–511.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., and Fish, F. E. 1997. Locomotor evolution in the earliest cetaceans: functional model, modern analogues, and paleontological evidence. Paleobiology 23:482–490.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., and Hussain, S. T. 1993. Origin of underwater hearing in whales. Nature 361:444–445.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., and Williams, E. M. 2002. The early radiations of Cetacea (Mammalia): evolutionary pattern and developmental correlations. Annual Review of Ecology and Sys-tematics 33:73–90.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., Hussain, S. T., and Arif, M. 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263:210–212.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., Madar, S. I., and Hussain, S. T. 1996. Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 191:1–86.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., Williams, E. M., Roe, L. J., and Hussain, S. T. 2001. Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature 413:277–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uhen, M. D. 1996. Dorudon atrox (Mammalia, Cetacea): form, function, and phylogenetic relationships of an archaeocete from the late middle Eocene of Egypt. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Uhen, M. D. 1998. Middle to late Eocene basilosaurines and dorudontines. Pp. 29–61in Thewissen, J. G. M., ed. The emergence of whales: evolutionary patterns in the origin of Cetacea. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Uhen, M. D. 1999. New species of protocetid archaeocete whale, Eocetus wardii (Mammalia: Cetacea) from the middle Eocene of North Carolina. Journal of Paleontology 73:512–528.Google Scholar
Uhen, M. D. 2003. Form, function, and anatomy of Dorudon atrox (Mammalia, Cetacea): an archaeocete from the middle to late Eocene of Egypt. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 34 (in press).Google Scholar
Voss, R. S. 1988. Systematics and ecology of ichthyomyine rodents (Muroidea): patterns of morphological evolution in a small adaptive radiation. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 188:260–493.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. O., and Guthrie, R. D. 1985. Why are aquatic small mammals so large? Oikos 45:365–373.Google Scholar
Yamada, M. 1954. An account of a rare porpoise Feresa Gray from Japan. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo 9:59–88.Google Scholar