Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T05:18:23.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new species of Palatobaena (Testudines: Baenidae) and a maximum parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Baenidae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Tyler R. Lyson  and
Walter G. Joyce
Tyler R. Lyson
Affiliation:
1Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, 210 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, 2Marmarth Research Foundation, Marmarth, North Dakota 58643
Walter G. Joyce
Affiliation:
3Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen, Sigwartstraße 10, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, 4Division of Vertebrate Paleontology, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, CT 06511
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New Palatobaena material from the Hell Creek Formation (Maastrichtian), including the first skull and shell association, from southwestern North Dakota represents a new species named herein Palatobaena cohen. the material consists of 4 skulls, 2 lower jaws, and 2 shells and represents a true biological population (spatially and temporally restricted), which provides unprecedented access to ontogenetic and other intraspecific variation found in this taxon. the skull's round shape and lack of a lingual ridge on the greatly expanded triturating surface indicate its Palatobaena affinities, but it differs from both previously existing Palatobaena taxa in a number of features. the addition of shell characters to the most inclusive baenid phylogenetic analyses (Maximum parsimony and Bayesian) to date indicate that Pa. cohen is sister taxon to the other Palatobaena taxa. Notably, both the maximum parsimony analysis and Bayesian analysis provide strong support for Plesiobaena antiqua as sister to the Palatobaena clade. in addition, both analyses provide strong support for Stygiochelys estesi as sister to the Eocene clade of Baena arenosa and Chisternon undatum, which significantly reduces this clades' ghost lineage. the baenid topology reveals a demonstrably homoplastic trend towards the reduction of the temporal emargination and unique thickening of the posterior portion of the parietals that corresponds with the K/T boundary and is hypothesized to have provided limited protection from increasingly effective mammalian predators.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , May 2009 , pp. 457 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archibald, J. D. 1977. Fossil Mammalia and Testudines of the Hell Creek Formation, and the geology of the Tullock and Hell Creek formations, Garfield County. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 694 p.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. D. and Hutchison, J. H. 1979. Revision of the genus Palatobaena (Testudines, Baenidae), with the description of a new species. Postilla, 177:1–19.Google Scholar
Boggs, S. 2006. Principles of sedimentology and stratigraphy (fourth edition). Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 662 p.Google Scholar
Brinkman, D. B. 2003. Anatomy and systematics of Plesiobaena antiqua (Testudines: Baenidae) from the mid-Campanian Judith River Group of Alberta, Canada. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23:146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkman, D. B. and Nicholls, E. L. 1991. Anatomy and relationships of the turtle Boremys pulchra (Testudines: Baenidae). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 11:302–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkman, D. B. and Nicholls, E. L. 1993. The skull of Neurankylus eximius (Testudines: Baenidae) and a reinterpretation of the relationships of this taxon. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 13:273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. M. and Middleton, K. M. 2008. Mosaicism, modules, and the evolution of birds: Results from a Bayesian approach to the study of morphological evolution using discrete character data. Systematic Biology, 57(2):185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1868. On the origin of genera. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 20:242–300.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1882. Contributions to the history of the Vertebrata of the Lower Eocene of Wyoming and New Mexico, made during 1881. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 20:139–197.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39:783–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaffney, E. S. 1972. The systematics of the North American family Baenidae (Reptilia, Cryptodira). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 147:241–320.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S. 1975. A phylogeny and classification of the higher categories of turtles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 155:387–436.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S. 1982. The lower jaws of baenid turtles. American Museum Novitiates, 2749:1–10.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S. and Hiatt, R. 1971. A new baenid turtle from the Upper Cretaceous of Montana. American Museum of Natural History Novitates, 2443:1–9.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S. and Meylan, P. A. 1988. A phylogeny of turtles: p. 157–291In Benton, M. J. (ed.), The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Volume. 1. Amphibians. Reptiles, Birds. Systematics Association Special Volume No 35A, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1935. On the Reptilia of the Kirtland Formation of New Mexico, with descriptions of new species of fossil turtles. Proceedings U.S. National Museum, 83:159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1901. Description of a new species of Baena (B. hatcheri) from the Laramie beds of Wyoming. Carnegie Museum Annals, 1:325–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication 75:1–568.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M. and Bull, J. J. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology, 42:182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holroyd, P. and Hutchison, J. H. 2002. Patterns of geographic variation in latest Cretaceous vertebrates: Evidence from the turtle component, p. 177–190. In Hartman, J. H., Johnson, K. R., and Nichols, D. J. (eds.), The Hell Creek Formation and Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary in the Great Plains: An Integrated Continental Record of the End of the Cretaceous. The Geological Society of America, Special Paper 361.Google Scholar
Hutchison, J. H. 1982. Turtle, crocodilian, and champsosaur diversity changes in the Cenozoic of the north central region of western United States. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 37:147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. H. 1984. Determinate growth in the Baenidae (Testudines): Taxonomic, ecologic and stratigraphic significance. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 3:148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. H. 2005. A new Eubaenine, Goleremys mckennai, gen. et sp. n., (Baenidae: Testudines) from the Paleocene of California. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 36:91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. H. and Archibald, J. D. 1986. Diversity of turtles across the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boundary in northeastern Montana. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 55:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. H. and Holroyd, P. A. 2003. Late Cretaceous and Early Paleocene turtles of the Denver Basin, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Geology, 38(1):121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, W. G. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of Mesozoic turtles. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, 48(1):3–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambe, L. M. 1902. New genera and species from the Belly River Series (Mid-Cretaceous). Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology, 3:23–81.Google Scholar
Lambe, L. M. 1906. Description of new species of Testudo and Baena with remarks on some Cretaceous forms. The Ottawa Naturalist, 10:187–198.Google Scholar
Leidy, J. 1870. [Description of Emys jeanesi n. sp., Emys haydeni n. sp., Baena arenosa n. g. n. sp., and Saniwa ensidens n. g. n. sp.]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1870:123–124.Google Scholar
Leidy, J. 1871. Remarks on fossil vertebrates from Wyoming. American Journal of Science, 2:372–373.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology, 50:913–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Volume 1 (tenth edition), Laurentius Salvius, Holmia.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. C., Hoganson, J., and Johnson, K. 2003. Lithostratigraphy of the Hell Creek Formation of North Dakota, p. 9–34. In Hartman, J. H., Johnson, K. R., and Nichols, D. J. (eds.), The Hell Creek Formation and Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary in the Great Plains: An Integrated Continental Record of the End of the Cretaceous. The Geological Society of America, Special Paper 361.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F. and Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics, 19:1572–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, D. A. 1975. Reptilian diversity and the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition in North America. Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper, 13:119–136.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 2001. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods). Version 4.0b10 Edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar