Chewing Through the Miocene: An Examination of the Feeding Musculature in the Ground Sloth Hapalops from South America (Mammalia: Pilosa)

Hapalops, a smaller-sized and early sloth of the Megatheroidea, appeared in the middle Miocene Santa Cruz formation of Argentina. This genus is part of the group from which later, larger megatheroids arose, i.e., Nothrotheriops and Megatherium. Many cranial characters support this idea; however Hapalops is not merely a smaller antecedent of the later forms. Specifically, Hapalops retains short anterior caniniform teeth, and a temporomandibular joint elevated above the cheek tooth row; a combination distinct among sloths. An elevated temporomandibular joint occurs in Bradypus, a tree sloth with anterior chisel-shaped teeth instead of caniniforms, and the tree sloth Choloepus, which is aligned with the megalonychids, has anterior caniniforms. Hapalops has an elongated zygomatic ascending process that is reminiscent of that in Bradypus; however, the Bradypus skull is extremely foreshortened while that of Hapalops is elongated, as in nothrotheres, but not deepened as in megatheres. Previous work identified many sloth cranial character complexes, and functional limitations on skull feature combinations. The unique Hapalops character patterns indicate a selective feeder with a mediolaterally oriented grinding stroke during mastication

What’s wrong with evolutionary biology?

There have been periodic claims that evolutionary biology needs urgent reform, and this article tries to account for the volume and persistence of this discontent. It is argued that a few inescapable properties of the field make it prone to criticisms of predictable kinds, whether or not the criticisms have any merit. For example, the variety of living things and the complexity of evolution make it easy to generate data that seem revolutionary (e.g. exceptions to well-established generalizations, or neglected factors in evolution), and lead to disappointment with existing explanatory frameworks (with their high levels of abstraction, and limited predictive power). It is then argued that special discontent stems from misunderstandings and dislike of one well-known but atypical research programme: the study of adaptive function, in the tradition of behavioural ecology. To achieve its goals, this research needs distinct tools, often including imaginary agency, and a partial description of the evolutionary process. This invites mistaken charges of narrowness and oversimplification (which come, not least, from researchers in other subfields), and these chime with anxieties about human agency and overall purpose. The article ends by discussing several ways in which calls to reform evolutionary biology actively hinder progress in the field

Evidence from nuclear DNA sequences sheds light on the phylogenetic relationships of pinnipedia: Single origin with affinity to musteloidea

Considerable long-standing controversy and confusion surround the phylogenetic affinities of pinnipeds, the largely marine group of "fin-footed" members of the placental mammalian order Carnivora. Until most recently, the two major competing hypotheses were that the pinnipeds have a single (monophyletic) origin from a bear-like ancestor, or that they have a dual (diphyletic) origin, with sea lions (Otariidae) derived from a bear-like ancestor, and seals (Phocidae) derived from an otter-, mustelid-, or musteloid-like ancestor. We examined phylogenetic relationships among 29 species of arctoid carnivorans using a concatenated sequence of 3228 bp from three nuclear loci (apolipoprotein B, APOB; interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein, IRBP; recombination-activating gene 1, RAG1). The species represented Pinnipedia (Otariidae: Callorhinus, Eumetopias; Phocidae: Phoca), bears (Ursidae: Ursus, Melursus), and Musteloidea (Mustelidae: Mustela, Enhydra, Melogale, Martes, Gulo, Meles; Procyonidae: Procyon; Ailuridae: Ailurus; Mephitidae: Mephitis). Maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian inference phylogenetic analyses of separate and combined datasets produced trees with largely congruent topologies. The analyses of the combined dataset resulted in well-resolved and well-supported phylogeny reconstructions. Evidence from nuclear DNA evolution presented here contradicts the two major hypotheses of pinniped relationships and strongly suggests a single origin of the pinnipeds from an arctoid ancestor shared with Musteloidea to the exclusion of Ursidae