Euchambersia

Last updated

Euchambersia
Temporal range: Wuchiapingian
Euchambersia skulls.jpg
Skull of E. liuyudongi from the top (a), sides (c, e), and back (f), and skulls of E. mirabilis from the top (b; BP/1/4009), side (d; NHMUK R5696), and back (g; NHMUK R5696)
Scientific classification OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Clade: Synapsida
Clade: Therapsida
Order:† Therocephalia
Family:† Akidnognathidae
Genus:† Euchambersia
Broom, 1931
Type species
†Euchambersia mirabilis
Broom, 1931
Other species
  • Euchambersia liuyudongiLiu & Abdala, 2022

Euchambersia is an extinct genus of therocephalian therapsids that lived during the Late Permian in what is now South Africa and China. The genus contains two species. The type species E. mirabilis was named by paleontologist Robert Broom in 1931 from a skull missing the lower jaw. A second skull, belonging to a probably immature individual, was later described. In 2022, a second species, E. liuyudongi, was named by Jun Liu and Fernando Abdala from a well-preserved skull. It is a member of the family Akidnognathidae, which historically has also been referred by as the synonymous Euchambersiidae (named after Euchambersia).

Contents

Euchambersia was a small and short-snouted therocephalian, possessing large canines as is typical of the group. However, it is notable among therocephalians for possessing ridges on its canines and a large indentation in the side of the skull. It has been proposed that these structures supported a venom delivery mechanism. If this statement turns out to be true, then it would be one of the oldest known tetrapods to have this characteristic. More recently, the internal structure of the skull of Euchambersia has been used as stronger evidence in favour of the hypothesis that it was venomous; other possibilities, such as the indentation supporting some sort of sensory organ, still remain plausible.

Discovery and naming

Video showing deformation correction of the holotype skull of E. mirabilis

The type specimen of Euchambersia mirabilis and of Euchambersia overall was found by Robert Broom on the South African farm of Vanwyksfontein, owned by a Mr. Greathead, near the town of Norvalspont. It consists of a single, distorted skull, catalogued as NHMUK R5696, which was described by Broom in 1931. [1] A second, smaller skull, with the specimen number BP/1/4009, was found in 1966 [2] and described by James Kitching in 1977. [3] Both specimens are missing the lower jaw. They originated from the same general layer of rock, in the upper Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone of the Beaufort Group within the Karoo Supergroup. [4] The Cistecephalus AZ has been dated to the Wuchiapingian stage of the Late Permian, [5] between 256.2 and 255.2 million years old. [6]

Broom named the genus Euchambersia, which he considered "the most remarkable therocephalian ever discovered", after the eminent Scottish publisher and evolutionary thinker Robert Chambers, whose Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation was considered by Broom to be "a very remarkable work" though "sneered at by many". [1]

The second species, E. liuyudongi, was named by Jun Liu and Fernando Abdala in 2022 based on a well-preserved skull with an associated lower jaw. It originated from the Naobaogou Formation of Inner Mongolia, which is dated more broadly to the Lopingian epoch (which contains the Wuchiapingian). The formation is divided into three members based on cycles of sedimentation, numbere as members I, II, and III from oldest to youngest; E. liuyudongi originates from member I. [7] Liu and colleagues had previously described a number of other new species from the middle portion of the Naobaogou Formation, which were among the 80 specimens that had been excavated from at least three field seasons after 2009. [8] [9]

Description

Life restoration of E. mirabilis showing hypothetical body Euchambersia mirabilis.jpg
Life restoration of E. mirabilis showing hypothetical body

E. mirabilis was small and short-snouted (the snout being about half of the skull length) for a therocephalian, with the type skull having a reconstructed length of approximately 11.6 cm (4.6 in), accounting for crushing and deformation in the fossil. The second known skull belonged to a smaller individual, with a length of 8 cm (3.1 in); it was probably immature, judging by the lack of fusion in the skull. [2] The type skull of E. liuyudongi measures 7 cm (2.8 in) in length and has a shorter snout (less than 40% of the skull length). [7]

According to the initial description, the eye socket of E. mirabilis was rather small. The branches of the postorbital and jugal that usually surround the back and bottom of the eye socket in therocephalians appear to be either very reduced or absent entirely. Meanwhile, the top of the eye socket is formed by the prefrontal, and the frontal is also small. The skull does not bear a pineal foramen. Like Whaitsia , the pterygoid and palatine of the palate are not separated from the transpalatine, further to the side of the jaw, by any sort of opening. [1] E. liuyudongi differs from E. mirabilis in several details of these bones: the frontal bone separates the prefrontal from contacting the postorbital, and the postorbital fenestrae at the back of the skull are slit-like instead of rounded. Additionally, the epipterygoid and prootic of the braincase are disconnected in E. liuyudongi. [7]

Teeth

Preserved and reconstructed tooth rows of the second (A-C) and type (D-F) specimens of E. mirabilis Euchambersia-4.png
Preserved and reconstructed tooth rows of the second (A-C) and type (D-F) specimens of E. mirabilis

Although the skulls of E. mirabilis are incompletely preserved, CT scanning suggests that each premaxilla held five incisors, with the sockets becoming progressively larger from the first to the fifth incisor. Like other theriodonts, the crowns of the incisors are conical; they also lack serrations, unlike gorgonopsians and scylacosaurian therocephalians. The interior edge of the incisors seems to be slightly concave, and the back edge appears to have a ridge. The smaller specimen has a displaced incisor preserved within its nasal cavity; it is more strongly recurved and has wear marks on its top edge, suggesting that it is probably a lower incisor. Its fourth incisor also has a replacement tooth growing behind it, accompanied by resorption of the root. [2]

The type specimen of E. mirabilis preserves the right canine. [2] Like other therocephalians, its canine was very large, resulting in a specialized predatory lifestyle that incorporates a sabertooth bite into prey killing. [10] It is round in cross-section, [4] and bears a prominent ridge on the side of its front surface. Immediately beside this ridge is a shallow depression that becomes wider near the top of the tooth, which is probably the same structure as the groove interpreted by some authors. [2] [11] Unlike E. mirabilis, however, the canines of E. liuyudongi had neither ridges nor grooves. [7] Theriodonts usually replace their teeth in an alternating [12] (or distichial) pattern, [13] [14] such that the canine tooth is always functional; both skulls of E. mirabilis show no sign of any replacement canines developing, suggesting that it was reliant on having both canines present and functional simultaneously. [2]

Maxillary fossa and associated canals

3D reconstruction of the maxillary canals of the two E. mirabilis skulls (A, BP/1/4009 ; B, NHMUK 5696, the holotype) from CT scans, compared with those of other therapsids (C, Bauria ; D, Olivierosuchus ; E, Thrinaxodon). Euchambersia-9.png
3D reconstruction of the maxillary canals of the two E. mirabilis skulls (A, BP/1/4009 ; B, NHMUK 5696, the holotype) from CT scans, compared with those of other therapsids (C, Bauria  ; D, Olivierosuchus  ; E, Thrinaxodon ).

Behind the incisors and canines, there were no additional teeth in both the upper and lower jaws (as confirmed by E. liuyudongi). [7] Where teeth would be located in therocephalians that do have teeth behind the canines, there was instead a large depression, or fossa, on the side of the maxilla, which was also bounded below by part of the lacrimal and possibly part of the jugal. [1] This fossa is 48% the length of the jaw in the type specimen of E. mirabilis, and 38% in the second skull. In both skulls, this fossa is divided into two parts: a shallower ridge on top, and a larger and deeper depression on the bottom. A wide furrow beginning behind the canine contacts the bottom of the fossa and then passes into the interior of the mouth. The bottom portion of the fossa is strongly pitted and bears a small opening, or foramen, on both the front and back surfaces. [2] In E. liuyudongi, this fossa is deeper still; a bar of the maxilla caps the top of the fossa and contacts the jugal, and the inner wall of the fossa has a large opening to the nasal cavity. Its fossa nearly reaches the mid-height of the snout. [7]

CT scanning shows that the openings of E. mirabilis lead to canals that connect to the trigeminal nerve, which controls facial sensitivity. The forward-directed canal also splits into the three main branches of the infraorbital nerve, [15] all of which connect to the socket of the canine; the junction occurs about 3–6 millimetres (0.12–0.24 in) along the canal, another point of variation between the two skulls. The top branch, the external nasal ramus, splits into four branches in the type skull, but it does not split in the second skull. In other therapsids like Thrinaxodon , Bauria , and Olivierosuchus , the external nasal ramus generally splits into three or more branches. All of these canals would have brought nerves and nutrient-rich tissue to the root of the canines and the rest of the upper jaw. [2] [15]

Classification

In 1934, Euchambersia was assigned to the newly named family Euchambersiidae by Lieuwe Dirk Boonstra. [16] [17] Boonstra initially misspelt the name as Euchambersidae (which is improper Latin), and was subsequently corrected by Friedrich von Huene in 1940. Euchambersiidae was initially considered to be separate from the families Moschorhinidae and Annatherapsididae; in 1974, Christiane Mendez recognized these groups as closely related subfamilies (renamed Annatherapsidinae, Moschorhininae and Euchambersiinae) within the wider group of her redefined Moschorhinidae (although she also referred to it as Annatherapsididae). [18]

The 1986 phylogenetic analysis of James Hopson and Herb Barghusen supported Mendez's hypothesis of three subfamilies within Moschorhinidae, but they elected to use the name Euchambersiidae. In 2009, Adam Huttenlocker and colleagues argued that the names Annatherapsididae, Moschorhinidae, and Euchambersiidae are junior synonyms of Akidnognathidae, since Akidnognathus (which also belongs in the same family) was named first before any other member of the family. [18] This name has reached wider acceptance among researchers. [18] [19] [20] Huttenlocker and colleagues also later redefined Moschorhininae as all of Akidnognathidae save for Annatherapsidus and Akidnognathus. [21]

Euchambersia canine.PNG
Euchambersia incisor.PNG
CT scans through the right canine of NHMUK 5696, the holotype of E. mirabilis (top), and of an incisor (possibly from the lower jaw) from BP/1/4009 (bottom)

In 2008, Mikhail Ivakhnenko included the Akidnognathidae (as the Euchambersiidae) as the sister group of the family Whaitsiidae in the superfamily Whaitsioidea. [17] However, other researchers do not include the Akidnognathidae in the Whaitsioidea. Phylogenies by Huttenlocker and colleagues found that the Akidnognathidae was instead closest to the Chthonosauridae, with the two forming the sister group to the group containing the Whaitsioidea and the Baurioidea. [21] Liu and Abdala performed a new phylogenetic analysis in 2022 for the description of E. liuyudongi. They found that the two species form a unified group within the Akidnognathidae, with the rest of the topology being similar to the one found by Huttenlocker and colleagues. The topology recovered by their analysis is shown below, with group labels following Huttenlocker and colleagues. [7]

Therocephalia

Lycosuchus

Gorynychus

Scylacosauria

Scylacosauridae

Eutherocephalia

Scylacosuchus

Whaitsioidea

Ophidostoma

Hofmeyria

Ictidostoma

Mirotenthes

Whaitsiidae

Baurioidea

Chthonosauridae

Akidnognathidae

Annatherapsidus

Shiguaignathus

Jiufengia

USNM PAL 412421

Akidnognathus

Moschorhininae

Olivierosuchus

Promoschorhynchus

Moschorhinus

Cerdosuchoides

Euchambersia mirabilis

Euchambersia liuyudongi

Paleobiology

CT scans of the skulls belonging to the type (right) and second (left) specimens of E. mirabilis Euchambersia.PNG
CT scans of the skulls belonging to the type (right) and second (left) specimens of E. mirabilis

Venom

The large maxillary fossae of Euchambersia have been continual subjects of debate regarding their function. However, most researchers agree that they held some sort of secretory gland. While Broom initially argued that the fossae may have contained the parotid salivary glands, [1] this proposal was rejected by Boonstra and J.P. Lehman, who noted that the parotid glands tend to be placed behind the eye; they respectively suggested that the fossae held modified lacrimal glands and Harderian glands. [2] However, the latter is also unlikely because Harderian glands are usually placed inside the eye socket. Franz Nopcsa suggested that the maxillary fossae housed venom glands (which may have been derived from lacrimal glands), with the ridged canines and the notches behind the canines allowing the venom to flow passively into the victim's bloodstream. [22] This hypothesis was widely accepted throughout the 20th century [19] [23] [24] [25] and the characteristic morphology of Euchambersia was used to support possible venom-bearing adaptations among various other prehistoric animals, [11] [26] [27] including the related therocephalians Megawhaitsia [17] and Ichibengops . [28]

Cross-section of the canine of E. mirabilis as originally illustrated by Broom (top left), with the subsequent "grooved" reconstruction (top centre) and new reconstruction based on CT scans (top right), compared to those of other mammals (bottom) Euchambersia-10.png
Cross-section of the canine of E. mirabilis as originally illustrated by Broom (top left), with the subsequent "grooved" reconstruction (top centre) and new reconstruction based on CT scans (top right), compared to those of other mammals (bottom)

Much of this acceptance has been based on the erroneous assumption that the canines are grooved instead of ridged; [4] grooved canines in Euchambersia would parallel the fangs of various venomous snakes as well as the venom-delivering incisors of the living solenodons. [25] This interpretation, which has consistently appeared in literature published after 1986, was determined by Julien Benoit to be the result of the propagation of Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull, without the context of the actual specimens. He thus considered it necessary to re-evaluate the hypothesis of a venomous bite in Euchambersia. [4] Additionally, Benoit argued that grooved and ridged canines are not necessarily associated with venomous animals either, as shown by their presence in hippopotami, muntjacs, and baboons, in which they play a role in grooming or sharpening the teeth; [4] [25] [29] in the latter two, ridged canines are also accompanied by a distinct fossa in front of the eye, which is entirely unconnected with venom. [25] [30] Furthermore, grooved and ridged teeth in non-venomous snakes are used to reduce suctional drag when capturing slippery prey like fish or invertebrates. [31]

Hypothetical reconstruction of the venom gland that filled the maxillary fossa (blue), with maxillary canals shown (green), in the second (A-B) and type (C-D) specimens of E. mirabilis Euchambersia-13.png
Hypothetical reconstruction of the venom gland that filled the maxillary fossa (blue), with maxillary canals shown (green), in the second (A-B) and type (C-D) specimens of E. mirabilis

CT scanning of the known specimens of Euchambersia by Benoit and colleagues was subsequently used to provide more concrete support in favour of the venom hypothesis. The canals leading into and from the maxillary fossae, as revealed by the scans, would primarily have supported the trigeminal nerve as well as blood vessels. [32] [33] [34] However, the fact that the canals also directly lead to the root of the canines would suggest that they had a secondary role in venom delivery. In all, Euchambersia seems to have had a venom gland (housed in the maxillary fossae), a delivery mechanism of the venom (the maxillary canals), and an instrument by which a wound for venom delivery can be inflicted (the ridged canines), which satisfy the criteria of a venomous animal as defined by Wolfgang Bücherl. [35] Benoit et al. noted that this does not conclusively demonstrate that Euchambersia was actually venomous, especially given the previously stated objections. Additionally, there are no living animals with a delivery system analogous to the proposed system for Euchambersia (most deliver venom through the lower jaw, [36] [37] while snakes have specialized ducts. [2] [38]

An alternate hypothesis suggested by Benoit et al. involves some kind of sensory organ occupying the maxillary fossa. Uniquely among therapsids, [15] the canal within the maxilla is exposed on the back side of the maxillary fossa, which implies that the canal, carrying the trigeminal nerve, would probably have extended across the fossa, outside of the outline of the skull. Benoit et al. hypothesized that the fossa may have supported a specialized sensory organ analogous to the pit organ of pit vipers and some other snakes, [39] or alternatively a ganglion of nerve cells. It is also possible that this organ functioned as a replacement for the parietal eye in Euchambersia, like the pit organ does in pit vipers. [40] However, such an expanded sensory organ would be unprecedented among tetrapods, and the few other therocephalians that also lack a parietal eye do not have a maxillary fossa either. [41] Thus, Benoit et al. considered the venom hypothesis as being more plausible. [2]

However, in the well-preserved specimen of the second species, E. liuyudongi, neither the snout nor the orbit showed signs of the venomous gland. Only the preorbital (scent) glands are found, supporting the "scent gland hypothesis," although CT scans are required for more knowledge regarding the new species' dentition and skull. [7]

Paleoecology

E. mirabilis

Restoration of E. mirabilis with dicynodont prey Euchambersia DB.jpg
Restoration of E. mirabilis with dicynodont prey

The Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone, from where E. mirabilis is known, represents a floodplain that was covered in many small, relatively straight streams. The water level in these streams was probably seasonally dependent. [5] Judging from pollen preserved in the Cistecephalus AZ, the pollen taxon Pityosporites (which probably originated from a plant similar to Glossopteris ) was very common, forming some 80% to 90% of the pollen discovered (although the prevalent sediments would not have been ideal for pollen preservation). [42]

In the Cistecephalus AZ, other co-occurring therocephalians included Hofmeyria , Homodontosaurus , Ictidostoma , Ictidosuchoides , Ictidosuchops , Macroscelesaurus , Polycynodon , and Proalopecopsis . More numerous, however, were the gorgonopsians, which included Aelurognathus , Aelurosaurus , Aloposaurus , Arctognathus , Arctops , Cerdorhinus , Clelandina , Cyonosaurus , Dinogorgon , Gorgonops , Lycaenops , Leontocephalus , Pardocephalus , Prorubidgea , Rubidgea , Scylacops , Scymnognathus , and Sycosaurus . [5]

By far the most abundant herbivore was the dicynodont Diictodon , with over 1900 known specimens from the Cistecephalus AZ. Other dicynodonts included Aulacephalodon , Cistecephalus , Dicynodon , Dicynodontoides , Digalodon , Dinanomodon , Emydops , Endothiodon , Kingoria , Kitchinganomodon , Oudenodon , Palemydops , Pelanomodon , Pristerodon , and Rhachiocephalus . The biarmosuchians Lemurosaurus , Lycaenodon , Paraburnetia , and Rubidgina were also present, along with the cynodonts Cynosaurus and Procynosuchus . Non-synapsids included the archosauromorph Younginia ; the parareptilians Anthodon , Milleretta , Nanoparia , Owenetta , and Pareiasaurus ; and the temnospondyl Rhinesuchus . [5]

E. liuyudongi

The less specialized Jiufengia was geographically close but temporally younger than E. liuyudongi Jiufengia.png
The less specialized Jiufengia was geographically close but temporally younger than E. liuyudongi

The Naobaogou Formation, from which E. liuyudongi is known, is part of a series of Late Permian river and lake deposits in Inner Mongolia, which were deposited by braided rivers, floodplains, and floodplain lakes. [43] Therocephalians had been reported from the Naobaogou Formation as early as 1989, [44] but these fossils were later lost. Subsequently, Liu and Abdala confirmed their presence in the formation by describing two other akidnognathids besides E. liuyudongi, Shiguaignathus [8] and Jiufengia , [45] as well as Caodeyao , a non-akidnognathid therocephalian closely related to the Russian Purlovia . [46] Unlike the more specialized E. liuyudongi, Liu and Abdala's 2022 phylogenetic analysis found Shiguaignathus and Jiufengia to be less specialized (basal) members of Akidnognathinae, while simultaneously originating from the younger member III of the formation. Thus, E. liuyudongi provides evidence of both a therocephalian genus existing in both southern and north Pangaea and of a specialized akidnognathid genus in northern Pangaea. [7]

Like the Cistecephalus AZ and other Permian palaeoenvironments, dicynodonts were the most commonly preserved animal of the Naobaogou Formation. [9] Daqingshanodon was described in 1989. [44] Subsequently-discovered specimens consist of at least seven different types that may belong to separate species, with one described as Turfanodon jiufengensis , two related to Daqingshanodon, and three or four related to Jimusaria . [9] Non-synapsids included the captorhinid Gansurhinus ; [47] the parareptilian Elginia wuyongae ; [48] and the chroniosuchian Laosuchus hun . [49]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Therapsid</span> Clade of tetrapods including mammals

Therapsida is a major group of eupelycosaurian synapsids that includes mammals, their ancestors and relatives. Many of the traits today seen as unique to mammals had their origin within early therapsids, including limbs that were oriented more underneath the body, as opposed to the sprawling posture of many reptiles and salamanders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gorgonopsia</span> Extinct group of saber-toothed therapsids from the Permian

Gorgonopsia is an extinct clade of sabre-toothed therapsids from the Middle to Upper Permian roughly 265 to 252 million years ago. They are characterised by a long and narrow skull, as well as elongated upper and sometimes lower canine teeth and incisors which were likely used as slashing and stabbing weapons. Postcanine teeth are generally reduced or absent. For hunting large prey, they possibly used a bite-and-retreat tactic, ambushing and taking a debilitating bite out of the target, and following it at a safe distance before its injuries exhausted it, whereupon the gorgonopsian would grapple the animal and deliver a killing bite. They would have had an exorbitant gape, possibly in excess of 90°, without having to unhinge the jaw.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Therocephalia</span> Extinct order of therapsids

Therocephalia is an extinct order of eutheriodont therapsids from the Permian and Triassic. The therocephalians ("beast-heads") are named after their large skulls, which, along with the structure of their teeth, suggest that they were carnivores. Like other non-mammalian synapsids, therocephalians were once described as "mammal-like reptiles". Therocephalia is the group most closely related to the cynodonts, which gave rise to the mammals. This relationship takes evidence in a variety of skeletal features.

<i>Moschorhinus</i> Genus of synapsid from late Permian and early Triassic South Africa

Moschorhinus is an extinct genus of therocephalian in the family Akidnognathidae with only one species: M. kitchingi. It was a carnivorous synapsid which has been found in the Late Permian to Early Triassic of the South African Karoo Supergroup. It was a large carnivore, reaching 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in total body length with the largest skull comparable to that of a lion in size. It had a broad, blunt snout which bore long, straight canines. It appears to have replaced the gorgonopsids ecologically, and hunted much like a big cat. While most abundant in the Late Permian, it survived a little after the Permian Extinction, though these Triassic individuals had stunted growth.

<i>Theriognathus</i> Extinct genus of therapsids from late Permian South Africa and Tanzania

Theriognathus is an extinct genus of therocephalian therapsid belonging to the family Whaitsiidae, known from fossils from South Africa, Zambia, and Tanzania. Theriognathus has been dated as existing during the Late Permian. Although Theriognathus means mammal jaw, the lower jaw is actually made up of several bones as seen in modern reptiles, in contrast to mammals. Theriognathus displayed many different reptilian and mammalian characteristics. For example, Theriognathus had canine teeth like mammals, and a secondary palate, multiple bones in the mandible, and a typical reptilian jaw joint, all characteristics of reptiles. It is speculated that Theriognathus was either carnivorous or omnivorous based on its teeth, and was suited to hunting small prey in undergrowth. This synapsid adopted a sleek profile of a mammalian predator, with a narrow snout and around 1 meter long. Theriognathus is represented by 56 specimens in the fossil record.

<i>Megawhaitsia</i> Extinct genus of large therapsids from the Late Permian in East Russia

Megawhaitsia is an extinct genus of large therocephalian therapsids who lived during the Late Permian (Wuchiapingian) in what is now Eastern Europe. The only known species is M. patrichae, described in 2008 from several fossils discovered in various oblasts of European Russia. The fossils are representative of a large animal whose skull size is estimated to be 40–50 cm (16–20 in) long.

Cynosaurus is an extinct genus of cynodonts. Remains have been found from the Dicynodon Assemblage Zone in South Africa. Cynosaurus was first described by Richard Owen in 1876 as Cynosuchus suppostus. Cynosaurus has been found in the late Permian period. Cyno- is derived from the Greek word kyon for dog and –sauros in Greek meaning lizard.

Scymnosaurus is an extinct genus of therocephalian therapsids, first described by Robert Broom in 1903. There are three species that still take the name Scymnosaurus, S. ferox, S. watsoni and S. major, with a fourth, S. warreni, now identified as Moschorhinus warreni. Each of these have now been reclassified into Lycosuchidae incertae sedis.

<i>Raranimus</i> Extinct genus of therapsids

Raranimus is an extinct genus of therapsids of the Middle Permian. It was described in 2009 from a partial skull found in 1998 from the Dashankou locality of the Qingtoushan Formation, outcropping in the Qilian Mountains of Gansu, China. The genus is the most basal known member of the clade Therapsida, to which the later Mammalia belong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Akidnognathidae</span> Extinct family of therapsids

Akidnognathidae is an extinct family of therocephalian therapsids from the Late Permian and Early Triassic of South Africa, Russia and China. The family includes many large-bodied therocephalians that were probably carnivorous, including Moschorhinus and Olivierosuchus. One akidnognathid, Euchambersia, may even have been venomous. Akidnognathids have robust skulls with a pair of large caniniform teeth in their upper jaws. The family is morphologically intermediate between the more basal therocephalian group Scylacosauridae and the more derived group Baurioidea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bauriidae</span> Extinct family of therapsids

Bauriidae is an extinct family of therocephalian therapsids. Bauriids were the latest-surviving group of therocephalians after the Permian–Triassic extinction event, going extinct in the Middle Triassic. They are among the most advanced eutherocephalians and possess several mammal-like features such as a secondary palate and wide postcanine teeth at the back of the jaws. Unlike other therocephalians, bauriids were herbivorous. They were also smaller than earlier members of the group. Two subfamilies are classified within Bauriidae: Nothogomphodontinae and Bauriinae.

Silpholestes is an extinct genus of therocephalian therapsids from the Late Permian of South Africa. The type species Silpholestes jackae was named by South African paleontologist Robert Broom in 1948 from the Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone.

Lycideops is an extinct genus of therocephalians from the Late Permian of South Africa. The type species is Lycideops longiceps, named in 1931 by South African paleontologist Robert Broom. Fossils of Lycideops come from the Dicynodon Assemblage Zone of the Beaufort Group. Lycideops is a member of the family Lycideopidae. Like other lycideopids, Lycideops has a long snout.

Ichibengops is an extinct genus of therocephalian therapsids known from the type species Ichibengops munyamadziensis, which lived in what is now Zambia during the Late Permian. Ichibengops was named in 2015 on the basis of fossils found in the Wuchiapingian-age Madumabisa Mudstone Formation in the Luangwa Basin. Therocephalians have been known from the Luangwa Basin for decades, yet Ichibengops was the first endemic Zambian therocephalian to have been described in detail. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that it is a basal member of the clade Eutherocephalia, lying just outside a clade containing hofmeyriids, whaitsiids, and baurioids. Ichibengops is the sister taxon of the Russian therocephalian Chthonosaurus; together they form one of several known African-Russian sister taxon pairs of eutherocephalians, which indicate that eutherocephalians could freely disperse across most of Pangea during the Late Permian. Like the fellow therocephalian Euchambersia, Ichibengops might have had venom glands, as evidenced by grooves above its teeth.

<i>Abdalodon</i> Extinct genus of cynodonts

Abdalodon is an extinct genus of late Permian cynodonts, known by its only species A. diastematicus.Abdalodon together with the genus Charassognathus, form the clade Charassognathidae. This clade represents the earliest known cynodonts, and is the first known radiation of Permian cynodonts.

The Naobaogou Formation is a geological formation in the Daqing Mountains of China. It is likely of Lopingian age. It consists of three rhythms of sediment, labelled members I-III primarily of purple siltstone, but each with a thick basal conglomerate bed. It is notable for its fossil content, producing one of the most diverse Late Permian vertebrate faunas outside Russia and South Africa.

<i>Caodeyao</i> Genus of therapsid from Permian China

Caodeyao is a genus of therocephalian that lived in what is now China during the late Permian. It was found in the Naobaogou Formation. It contains one species, Caodeyao liuyufengi, named in 2020 by Jun Liu and Fernando Abdala.

Vetusodon is an extinct genus of cynodonts belonging to the clade Epicynodontia. It contains one species, Vetusodon elikhulu, which is known from four specimens found in the Late Permian Daptocephalus Assemblage Zone of South Africa. With a skull length of about 18 centimetres (7.1 in), Vetusodon is the largest known cynodont from the Permian. Through convergent evolution, it possessed several unusual features reminiscent of the contemporary therocephalian Moschorhinus, including broad, robust jaws, large incisors and canines, and small, single-cusped postcanine teeth.

Ictidosaurus was a therapsid genus found in the Abrahamskraal Formation of South Africa, which lived during the middle Permian period. Fossils of the type species were found in the Tapinocephalus, and the base of the Eodicynodon assembly zones, of the Karoo Basin. Older classifications of the species, along with many other specimens found in the Iziko South African Museum archives, were originally classified within therocephalian family names, in this case the Ictidosauridae, which has been reclassified as belonging to the Scylacosauridae. The type species is I. angusticeps.

<i>Jiufengia</i> Extinct genus of therocephalian

Jiufengia is an extinct genus of therocephalian in the family Akidnognathidae. It is known from a single species, Jiufengia jiai, from the Late Permian Naobaogou Formation in China.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Broom, R. (1931). "Notices of some new genera and species of Karroo fossil reptiles". Records of the Albany Museum. 4 (1): 161–166.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Benoit, J.; Norton, L.A.; Manger, P.R.; Rubidge, B.S. (2017). "Reappraisal of the envenoming capacity of Euchambersia mirabilis (Therapsida, Therocephalia) using μCT-scanning techniques". PLOS ONE. 12 (2): e0172047. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1272047B. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172047 . PMC   5302418 . PMID   28187210.
  3. ↑ Kitching, J. W. (1977). The Distribution of the Karroo Vertebrate Fauna: With Special Reference to Certain Genera and the Bearing of this Distribution on the Zoning of the Beaufort Beds. Johannesburg: Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research, University of the Witwatersrand. pp. 1–131. ISBN   978-0-854-94427-9.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Benoit, J. (2016). "A review of the "venomous therocephalian" hypothesis and how multiple re-portrayals of Euchambersia have influenced its success and vice versa". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 187 (4): 217–224. doi:10.2113/gssgfbull.187.4-5.217.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Smith, R.; Rubidge, B.; van der Walt, M. (2012). "Therapsid Biodiversity Patterns and Palaeoenvironments of the Karoo Basin, South Africa". In Chinsamy-Turan, A. (ed.). Forerunners of Mammals: Radiation, Histology, Biology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 31–64. ISBN   978-0-253-00533-5.
  6. ↑ Rubidge, B.S.; Erwin, D.H.; Ramezani, J.; Bowring, S.A.; de Klerk, W.J. (2013). "High-precision temporal calibration of Late Permian vertebrate biostratigraphy: U-Pb zircon constraints from the Karoo Supergroup, South Africa". Geology. 41 (3): 363–366. Bibcode:2013Geo....41..363R. doi:10.1130/G33622.1.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Liu, J.; Abdala, F. (2022). "The emblematic South African therocephalian Euchambersia in China: a new link in the dispersal of late Permian vertebrates across Pangea". Biology Letters. 18 (7): 20220222. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2022.0222. PMC   9278400 . PMID   35857894.
  8. 1 2 Liu, J.; Abdala, F. (2017). "The tetrapod fauna of the upper Permian Naobaogou Formation of China: 1. Shiguaignathus wangi gen. et sp. nov., the first akidnognathid therocephalian from China". PeerJ. 5: e4150. doi:10.7717/peerj.4150. PMC   5723136 . PMID   29230374.
  9. 1 2 3 Liu, J. (2019). "The tetrapod fauna of the upper Permian Naobaogou Formation of China: 4. The diversity of dicynodonts". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 57 (3): 173-180. doi:10.19615/j.cnki.1000-3118.190522.
  10. ↑ Andersson, K.; Norman, D.; Werdelin, L. (2011). "Sabretoothed Carnivores and the Killing of Large Prey". PLOS ONE. 6 (10): e24971. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...624971A. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024971 . PMC   3198467 . PMID   22039403.
  11. 1 2 Sues, H.-D. (1991). "Venom-conducting teeth in a Triassic reptile". Nature. 351 (6322): 141–143. Bibcode:1991Natur.351..141S. doi:10.1038/351141a0. S2CID   4306912.
  12. ↑ Kermack, D.W.; Kermack, K.A. (1984). "Dentitions, Tooth-Replacement and Jaw Articulation". The Evolution of Mammalian Characters. Springer US. pp. 66–68. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7817-4. ISBN   978-1-4684-7819-8.
  13. ↑ Kermack, K.A. (1956). "Tooth Replacement in Mammal-Like Reptiles of the Suborders Gorgonopsia and Therocephalia". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 240 (670): 95–133. Bibcode:1956RSPTB.240...95K. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1956.0013 .
  14. ↑ Hopson, J.A. (1964). "Tooth replacement in cynodont, dicynodont, and therocephalian reptiles". Journal of Zoology. 142 (4): 625–654. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1964.tb04632.x.
  15. 1 2 3 Benoit, J.; Manger, P.R.; Rubidge, B.R. (2016). "Palaeoneurological clues to the evolution of defining mammalian soft tissue traits". Scientific Reports. 6: 25604. Bibcode:2016NatSR...625604B. doi:10.1038/srep25604. PMC   4860582 . PMID   27157809.
  16. ↑ Boonstra, L.D. (1934). "A contribution to the morphology of the mammal-like reptiles of the suborder Therocephalia". Annals of the South African Museum. 31: 215–267.
  17. 1 2 3 Ivakhnenko, M.F. (2008). "The First Whaitsiid (Therocephalia, Theromorpha)". Paleontological Journal. 42 (4): 409–413. doi:10.1134/S0031030108040102. S2CID   140547244.
  18. 1 2 3 Huttenlocker, A. (2009). "An investigation into the cladistic relationships and monophyly of therocephalian therapsids (Amniota: Synapsida)". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 157 (4): 865–891. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2009.00538.x .
  19. 1 2 Rubidge, B.S.; Sidor, C.A. (2001). "Evolutionary Patterns Among Permo-Triassic Therapsids". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 32: 449–480. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114113.
  20. ↑ Sigurdsen, T. (2006). "New features of the snout and orbit of a therocephalian therapsid from South Africa". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 51 (1): 63–75.
  21. 1 2 Huttenlocker, A.K.; Sidor, C.A. (2016). "The first karenitid (Therapsida, Therocephalia) from the upper Permian of Gondwana and the biogeography of Permo-Triassic therocephalians". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 36 (4): e1111897. Bibcode:2016JVPal..36E1897H. doi:10.1080/02724634.2016.1111897. S2CID   130994874.
  22. ↑ Nopcsa, F. (1933). "On the biology of the theromorphous reptile Euchambersia". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 10. 12 (67): 125–126. doi:10.1080/00222933308673757.
  23. ↑ Watson, D.M.; Romer, A.S. (1956). "A classification of therapsid reptiles". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 114: 35–89.
  24. ↑ Van Valen, L. (1960). "Therapsids as Mammals". Evolution. 14 (3): 304–313. doi:10.2307/2405973. JSTOR   2405973.
  25. 1 2 3 4 Folinsbee, K.E.; Muller, J.; Reisz, R.R. (2007). "Canine Grooves: Morphology, Function, and Relevance to Venom". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27 (2): 547–551. doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[547:cgmfar]2.0.co;2. JSTOR   30126324. S2CID   54602365.
  26. ↑ Sues, H.-D. (1996). "A reptilian tooth with apparent venom canals from the Chinle Group (Upper Triassic) of Arizona". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 16 (3): 571–572. doi:10.1080/02724634.1996.10011340.
  27. ↑ Gong, E.; Martin, L.D.; Burnham, D.A.; Falk, A.R. (2009). "The birdlike raptor Sinornithosaurus was venomous". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107 (2): 766–768. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107..766G. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912360107 . PMC   2818910 . PMID   20080749.
  28. ↑ Huttenlocker, A.K.; Sidor, C.A.; Angielczyk, K.D. (2015). "A new eutherocephalian (Therapsida, Therocephalia) from the upper Permian Madumabisa Mudstone Formation (Luangwa Basin) of Zambia". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 35 (5): e969400. Bibcode:2015JVPal..35E9400H. doi:10.1080/02724634.2015.969400. S2CID   83554630.
  29. ↑ Mitchell, J.S.; Heckert, A.B.; Sues, H.-D. (2010). "Grooves to tubes: evolution of the venom delivery system in a Late Triassic "reptile"". Naturwissenschaften. 97 (12): 1117–1121. Bibcode:2010NW.....97.1117M. doi:10.1007/s00114-010-0729-0. PMID   21060984. S2CID   10093308.
  30. ↑ Orr, C.M.; Delezene; Scott, J.E.; Tocheri, M.W.; Schwartz, G.T. (2007). "The comparative method and the inference of venom-delivery systems in fossil mammals". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27 (2): 541–546. doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[541:TCMATI]2.0.CO;2. S2CID   45645935.
  31. ↑ Vaeth, R.H.; Rossman, D.A.; Shoop, W. (1985). "Observations of Tooth Surface Morphology in Snakes". Journal of Herpetology. 19 (1): 20–26. doi:10.2307/1564416. JSTOR   1564416.
  32. ↑ Bellairs, A.D'A. (1949). "Observations on the snout of Varanus, and a comparison with that of other lizards and snakes". Journal of Anatomy. 83 (2): 116–146. PMC   1273152 . PMID   17105074.
  33. ↑ Abdel-Kader, T.G.; Ali, R.S.; Ibrahim, N.M. (2011). "The Cranial Nerves of Mabuya quinquetaeniata III: Nervus Trigeminus" (PDF). Life Science Journal. 8 (4): 650–669.
  34. ↑ Leitch, D.B.; Catania, K.C. (2012). "Structure, innervation and response properties of integumentary sensory organs in crocodilians". Journal of Experimental Biology. 215 (23): 4217–4230. doi:10.1242/jeb.076836. PMC   4074209 . PMID   23136155.
  35. ↑ Bücherl, W. (1968). "Introduction". In Bücherl, W.; Buckley, E.E.; Deulofeu, V. (eds.). Venomous Animals and their Venoms. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. pp. 9–12. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4832-2949-2.50006-0. ISBN   9781483229492.
  36. ↑ Fry, B.G.; Wroe, S.; Teeuwisse, W.; van Osch, M.J.P.; Moreno, K.; Ingle, J.; McHenry, C.; Ferrara, T.; Clausen, P.; Scheib, H.; Winter, K.L.; Greisman, L.; Roelants, K.; van der Weerd, L.; Clemente, C.J.; Giannakis, E. (2009). "A central role for venom in predation by Varanus komodoensis (Komodo Dragon) and the extinct giant Varanus (Megalania) priscus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 106 (22): 8969–8974. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.8969F. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810883106 . PMC   2690028 . PMID   19451641.
  37. ↑ Ligabue-Braun, R.; Verli, H.; Carlini, C.R. (2012). "Venomous mammals: A review". Toxicon. 59 (7): 680–695. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.02.012. PMID   22410495.
  38. ↑ Weinstein, S.A.; Smith, T.L.; Kardong, K.V. (2009). "Reptile Venom Glands: Form, Function, and Future" (PDF). In Mackessy, S.P. (ed.). Handbook of Venoms and Toxins of Reptiles. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 65–91.
  39. ↑ Goris, R.C. (2011). "Infrared Organs of Snakes: An Integral Part of Vision". Journal of Herpetology. 45 (1): 2–14. doi:10.1670/10-238.1. S2CID   86066152.
  40. ↑ Krochmal, A.R.; Bakken, G.S.; LaDuc, T.J. (2004). "Heat in evolution's kitchen: evolutionary perspectives on the functions and origin of the facial pit of pitvipers (Viperidae: Crotalinae)". Journal of Experimental Biology. 207 (24): 4231–4238. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01278 . PMID   15531644.
  41. ↑ Benoit, J.; Abdala, F.; Manger, P.R.; Rubidge, B.S. (2016). "The Sixth Sense in Mammalian Forerunners: Variability of the Parietal Foramen and the Evolution of the Pineal Eye in South African Permo-Triassic Eutheriodont Therapsids". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 61 (4): 777–789. doi: 10.4202/app.00219.2015 .
  42. ↑ Anderson, J.M. (1977). "The microfloral succession: conclusions and discussion". A Review of Gondwana Permian Palynology with Particular Reference to the Northern Karoo Basin of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa. Vol. 41. pp. 42–58.
  43. ↑ Liu, J.; Li, L. (2013). "Large Tetrapod Burrows from the Permian Naobaogou Formation of the Daqingshan Area, Nei Mongol, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 87 (6): 1501–1507. doi:10.1111/1755-6724.12154. S2CID   247669706.
  44. 1 2 Zhu, Y.L. (1989). "The discovery of dicynodonts in Daqingshan Mountain, Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia)" (PDF). Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 27 (1): 9–27.
  45. ↑ Liu, J.; Abdala, F. (2019). "The tetrapod fauna of the upper Permian Naobaogou Formation of China: 3. Jiufengia jiai gen. et sp. nov., a large akidnognathid therocephalian". PeerJ. 7: e6463. doi:10.7717/peerj.6463. PMC   6388668 . PMID   30809450.
  46. ↑ Liu, J.; Abdala, F. (2020). "The tetrapod fauna of the upper Permian Naobaogou Formation of China: 5. Caodeyao liuyufengi gen. et sp. nov., a new peculiar therocephalian". PeerJ. 8: e9160. doi:10.7717/peerj.9160. PMC   7261480 . PMID   32523808.
  47. ↑ Reisz, R.R.; Liu, J.; Li, J.-L.; Müller, J. (2011). "A new captorhinid reptile, Gansurhinus qingtoushanensis, gen. et sp. nov., from the Permian of China". Naturwissenschaften. 98 (5): 435–441. Bibcode:2011NW.....98..435R. doi:10.1007/s00114-011-0793-0. PMID   21484260. S2CID   20274349.
  48. ↑ Liu, J.; Bever, G.S. (2018). "The tetrapod fauna of the upper Permian Naobaogou Formation of China: a new species of Elginia (Parareptilia, Pareiasauria)". Papers in Palaeontology. 4 (2): 197–209. doi:10.1002/spp2.1105. S2CID   135273110.
  49. ↑ Liu, J.; Chen, J. (2018). "The tetrapod fauna of the upper Permian Naobaogou Formation of China: 7. Laosuchus hun sp. nov. (Chroniosuchia) and interrelationships of chroniosuchians". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 18 (24): 2043–2058. doi:10.1080/14772019.2021.1873435. S2CID   232116225.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.