Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Vestnik Zoologii

The Journal of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Schmalhauzen Institute of Zoology

6 Issues per year


Cite Score 2016: 0.35

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.300
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.496

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2073-2333
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 50, Issue 4 (Aug 2016)

Issues

Re-Evaluation of Morphological Characters Questions Current Views of Pinniped Origins

I. A. Koretsky
  • Laboratory of Evolutionary Biology, Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, Howard University, 520 W. St. NW, Washington, DC 20059,United States of America
/ L. G. Barnes
  • Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007,United States of America
/ S. J. Rahmat
  • Corresponding author
  • Laboratory of Evolutionary Biology, Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, Howard University, 520 W. St. NW, Washington, DC 20059,United States of America
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-11-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/vzoo-2016-0040

Abstract

The origin of pinnipeds has been a contentious issue, with opposite sides debating monophyly or diphyly. This review uses evidence from the fossil record, combined with comparative morphology, molecular and cytogenetic investigations to evaluate the evolutionary history and phylogenetic relationships of living and fossil otarioid and phocoid pinnipeds. Molecular investigations support a monophyletic origin of pinnipeds, but disregard vital morphological data. Likewise, morphological studies support diphyly, but overlook molecular analyses. This review will demonstrate that a monophyletic origin of pinnipeds should not be completely accepted, as is the current ideology, and a diphyletic origin remains viable due to morphological and paleobiological analyses. Critical examination of certain characters, used by supporters of pinniped monophyly, reveals different polarities, variability, or simply convergence. The paleontological record and our morphological analysis of important characters supports a diphyletic origin of pinnipeds, with otarioids likely arising in the North Pacific from large, bear-like animals and phocids arising in the North Atlantic from smaller, otter-like ancestors. Although members of both groups are known by Late Oligocene time, each developed and invaded the aquatic environment separately from their much earlier, common arctoid ancestor. Therefore, we treat the superfamily Otarioidea as being monophyletic, including the families Enaliarctidae, Otariidae (fur seals/sea lions), Desmatophocidae, and Odobenidae (walruses and extinct relatives), and the superfamily Phocoidea as monophyletic, including only the family Phocidae, with four subfamilies (Devinophocinae, Phocinae, Monachinae, and Cystophorinae).

Keywords: Pinnipeds; evolution; adaptation; phylogeny; morphology

References

  • Adam, P. J., Berta, A. 2002. Evolution of prey capture strategies and diet in Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia, Carnivora). Oryctos, 4, 83-107.Google Scholar

  • Allen, J. A. 1880. History of North American Pinnipeds. A monograph of walruses, sea lions, sea bears and seals of Northern America. Miscellaneous Publication, U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, 12, 1-785.Google Scholar

  • Amson, E., Muizon, C. de. 2014. A new durophagous phocid (Mammalia: Carnivora) from the late Neogene of Peru and considerations on monachine seals phylogeny. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 12, 523-548.Google Scholar

  • Anbinder, E. M. 1980. Karyology and Evolution of the Pinnipeds. Nauka, Moscow, 1-452 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Ärnason, U. 1977. The relationship between the four principal pinniped karyotypes. Hereditas, 87, 227-242.Google Scholar

  • Ärnason, U., Gullberg, A., Janke, A., Kullberg, M., Lehman, N., Petrov, E.A., Väinölä, R. 2006. Pinniped Phylogeny and a new Hypothesis for their origin and dispersal. Molecular Phylogenetic and Evolution, 41, 345-354.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1972. Miocene Desmatophocinae (Mammalia: Carnivora) from California. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 89, 1-68.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1979. Fossil enaliarctine pinnipeds (Mammalia: Otariidae) from Pyramid Hill, Kern County, California. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 318, 1-41.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1987 a. An Early Miocene pinniped of the genus Desmatophoca (Mammalia: Otariidae) from Washington. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 382, 1-20.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1987 b. Abstract: Paleontological evidence bearing on the interpretation of otariid pinniped Phylogeny. The Society for Marine Mammalogy Seventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Miami, Florida.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1988. A new fossil pinniped (Mammalia: Otariidae) from the Middle Miocene Sharktooth Hill Bonebed, California. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 396, 1-11.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1989. A new enaliarctine pinniped from the Astoria Formation, Oregon, and a classifi cation of the Otariidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 403, 1-26.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 1990. A new Miocene enaliarctine pinniped of the genus Pteronarctos (Mammalia: Otariidae) from the Astoria Formation, Oregon. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 422, 1-20.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G. 2008. Chapter 31: Otarioidea. In: Janis, C., Gunnel, G. F, Uhen, M. D., eds. Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America. Vol. 2: Small Mammals, Xenarthrans, and Marine Mammals. University Press, New York, Cambridge, 523-541.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G, Mitchell, E. D. 1975. Late Cenozoic northeast Pacifi c Phocidae. Rapports et Procés-verbaux des Réunions, Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 169, 34-42.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G., Domning, D. P., Ray, C. E. 1985. Status of studies on fossil marine mammals. Marine Mammal Science, 1, 15-53.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. G., Hirota, K. 1994. Miocene Pinnipeds of theOtariid subfamily Allodesminae in The North Pacifi c Ocean: Systematics and Relationships. In: Barnes, L. G., Hasegawa, Y., and Inuzuka, N., eds. The Island Arc, Special Issue, Evolution and Biogeography of Fossil Marine Vertebrates in the Pacific Realm, Collected Papers from A Symposium Dedicated to the Memory of Arthur Remington Kellogg in the Year of the 100th Anniversary of his Birth-1992. Proceedings of the 29th International Geological Congress. Kyoto, Japan, 329-360Google Scholar

  • Barnes, L. B., Ray, C. E., Koretsky, I. A. 2006. A New Sea Lion, Protterozetes Ulysses (Mammlia: Otariidae) from Oregon, USA. In: Csiki, Z., ed. Mesozoic and Cenozoic Vertebrates and Paleoenvironments, Tribute to the Career of Professor Dan Grigorescu. Ars Docendi, Bucharest, 57-77.Google Scholar

  • Bechly, G. 2000. Mainstream Cladistics versus Hennigian Phylogenetic Systematics. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde. Ser. A (Biologie), 613, 1-11.Google Scholar

  • Berta, A. 1991. New Enaliarctos (Pinnipedimorpha) from the Oligocene and Miocene of Oregon and the role of “enaliarctids” in pinniped phylogeny. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 69, 1-33.Google Scholar

  • Berta, A., Ray, C. E., Wyss, A. R. 1989. Skeleton of the oldest known pinniped. Enaliarctos Mealsi. Science, 244, 60-62.Google Scholar

  • Berta, A., Ray, C. E. 1990. Skeletal morphology and locomotor capabilities of the archaic Pinniped Enaliarctos mealsi. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 10, 141-157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berta, A., Wyss, A. R. 1990. Technical comments. Oldest pinniped. Science, 48, 499-500.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berta, A., Wyss, A. R. 1994. Pinniped Phylogeny. In: Berta, A., Deméré, T. A., eds. Contributions in Marine Mammal Paleontology Honoring Frank C. Whitmore, Jr. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 29, 33-56Google Scholar

  • Berta, A., Sumich, J. L. 1999. Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, 1-560.Google Scholar

  • Berta, A., Kienle, S., Bianucci, G., Sorbi, S. 2015. A Reevaluation of Pliophoca etrusca (Pinnipedia, Phocidae) from the Pliocene of Italy: phylogenetic and biogeographic implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35 (1):e889144. 2015.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol., 52, 839-848.Google Scholar

  • Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Russell, A. P. 1996. A morphological perspective on the phylogenetic relationships of the extant phocid seals (Mammalia: Carnivora: Phocidae). Bonner zoologische Monographien, 41, 1-256.Google Scholar

  • Bryden, M. M., Felts, W. J. L. 1974. Quantitative anatomical observations on the skeletal and muscular systems of four species of Antarctic seals. Journal of Anatomy, 118 (3), 589-600.Google Scholar

  • Burns, J. J., Fay, F. H. 1970. Comparative morphology of the skull of the Ribbon seal, Histriophoca fasciata, with remarks on systematics of Phocidae. Journal of Zoology (London), 161 (3), 363-394.Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1952. The age and sexual changes in the craniological features and their influence upon the diagnosis of some pinnipeds. Izvestia Institute estestvenich Nauk. Moscow, 25, 78-96 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1955. An attempt at revision of the systematics and diagnostics of seals of the subfamily Phocinae. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 17, 160-199 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1961. Current status and problems in the systematics of pinnipeds. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 12, 138-149.Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1967. Morphological-taxonomical nature of the pagetod form of the Bering Sea. Largha seal. In: Research on marine mammals. Trudy Poliarnogo Nauchno-Issledovatelskogo Institute Rybnogo Khoziaistva i Okeanography (PINRO, Murmansk, 21, 147-177 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1971 Systematic rank and subgeneric diff erentiation of seals (of the subfamily Monachinae). Trudy Atlantic Nauchno-Issledovatelskogo Institute Rybnogo Khoziaistva i Okeanography (ATLANTNIRO), Kaliningrad, 39, 305-316 (English translation, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Translation Ser., 3185, 1974).Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1974. In defense of classical taxonomy of the seals of the family Phocidae. Trudy Zoological Institute Academy of Sciences USSR, 53, 282-334 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Chapskii, K. K. 1975. Taxonomy of the seals of genus Phoca sensu stricto. In: Marine mammals. Materials VI All-Union Conference. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 2, 159-162 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Churchill, M., Clementz, M. T., Kohno, N. 2014 a. Predictive equations for the estimation of body size in seals and sea lions (Carnivora: Pinnipedia). Journal of Anatomy, 225, 232-245.Google Scholar

  • Churchill, M., Clementz, M.T., Kohno, N. 2014 b. Cope’s rule and the evolution of body size in Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia: Carnivora). Evolution, 69, 201-215.Google Scholar

  • Churchill, M., Clementz, M. T. 2015. Functional implications of variation in tooth spacing and crown size in Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia: Carnivora). Anatomical Record, 298, 878-902.Google Scholar

  • Cozzuol, M. A. 2001. A “Northern” Seal from the Miocene of Argentina: Implications for Phocid Phylogeny and Biogeography. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2 (3), 415-421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cuvier, G. 1825. Recherches sur les ossements fossiles, où lon établit les caractères de plusieurs animaux dont les révolutions du globe ont détruit les espèces. Paris, 3rd ed., 5, 1-405.Google Scholar

  • Davies, J. L. 1958. The Pinnipedia: an essay in zoogeography. Geographical Review, 48 (4), 474-493.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deméré, T. A., Berta, A., Adam, P. J. 2003. Pinnipedimorph Evolutionary Biogeography. In: Flynn, L. J., ed. Vertebrate Fossils and their Context, Contributions in Honor of Richard H. Tedford. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 279, 32-76.Google Scholar

  • English, A.W. 1976. Limb movements and locomotor function in the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Journal of Zoology (London), 178, 341-364.Google Scholar

  • Farris, J. S. 1988. Hennig86, version 1.5. Available from Diana Lipscomb. Department of Biology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20560.Google Scholar

  • Feldkamp, S. D. 1987. Swimming in the California Sea Lion: morphometrics, drag and Energetic. Journal of Experimental Biology, 131, 117-135.Google Scholar

  • Finarelli, J. A. 2008. A Total Evidence Phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora: Mammalia): Relationships among Basal Taxa. Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 15 (4), 231-259.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Finarelli, J. A., Flynn, J. J. 2008. Ancestral State Reconstruction of Body Size in the Caniformia (Carnivora, Mammalia): The Effects of Incorporating Data from the Fossil Record. Systematic Biology, 55 (2), 301-313.Google Scholar

  • Fish, F. E. 1993. Influence of Hydrodynamic Design and Propulsive Mode on Mammalian Swimming Energetics. Australian Journal of Zoology, 42 (1), 79-101.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fish, F. E. 1994 a. Leviathan Locomotion. Natural History, 8, 4.Google Scholar

  • Fish, F. E. 1994 b. Association of Propulsive Swimming Mode with Behavior in River Otters (Lutra canadensis). Journal of Mammalogy, 75 (4), 989-997.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fish, P. A. 1903. The cerebral fissures of the Atlantic walrus. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 26, 675-688.Google Scholar

  • Flynn, J. J, Neff , N. A., Tedford, R. H. 1988. Phylogeny of the Carnivora. In: Benton, M. J., ed. The Phylogenetic Classification of the Tetrapods, vol. 2. Mammals. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 73-116.Google Scholar

  • Flynn, J. J., Nedbal, M. A. 1998. Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): congruence vs incompatibility among multiple data sets. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 9, 414-426.Google Scholar

  • Flynn, J. J, Finarelli, J. A., Zehr, S., Hsu, J., Nedbal, A. 2005. Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the Impact of Increased Sampling on Resolving Enigmatic Relationships. Systematic Biology, 54 (2), 317-337.Google Scholar

  • Fulton, T. L, Strobeck, C. 2006. Molecular phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora): effect of missing data on supertree and supermatrix analyses of multiple gene data sets. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 41, 165-181.Google Scholar

  • Fyler, C. A., Reeder, T. W., Berta, A., Antonelis, G., Aguilar, A., Androukaki, E. 2005. Historical biogeography and phylogeny of monachine seals (Pinnipedia: Phocidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNS data. Journal of Biogeography, 32, 1267-1279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gambarjan, P. P., Karapetjan, W. S. 1961. Besonderheiten im Bau des Seelöwen (Eumetopias californianus), der Baikalrobbe (Phoca sibirica) und des Seeotters (Enhydra lutris) in Anpassung an die Fortbewegung im Wasser. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere Jena, 79, 123-148.Google Scholar

  • Gill, T. N. 1872. Arrangement of the Families of Mammals, with analytical tables. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 11(1), 1+98.Google Scholar

  • Gistel, N. F. X. von. 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs für höhere Schulen.Stuttgart, 1848. Godfrey S. J. Plesiosaur subaqueous locomotion: a reappraisal. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Monatsheft e, Stuttgart, 11, 661-672.Google Scholar

  • Gordon, K. R. 1983. Mechanics of the Limbs of the Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) and the California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus). Journal of Morphology, 175, 73-90.Google Scholar

  • Grassé, P. P. Traité de zoologie. 1955. Anatomy, systematics, biology. Publie sous la direction de Pierre Paris, 27, 568-668.Google Scholar

  • Gray, J. E. 1844/1875. The zoology of the voyage of H. M. S. Erebus and Terror, under the command of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, N. N., F. R. S., during the years 1839 to 1843. Part 1. Mammalia. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London [In the Catalogue of the Specimens of Mammalian the Collection of the British Museum].Google Scholar

  • Gray, J. E. 1869. The Sea Elephant (Mirounga proboscidea) at the Falkland Islands. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4 (13), 1-400.Google Scholar

  • Gray, J. E. 1874. On the skulls of Sea-Bears, Sea-Lions (Otariidae) and on the skulls of the Auckland Islands. Th e Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4 (14), 24-30.Google Scholar

  • Hall, E. R., Kelson, K. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vols. 1 and 2. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, 2nd ed.Google Scholar

  • Hay, O. P. 1930. Second Bibliography and Catalog of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication 390.Google Scholar

  • Heptner, V. G., Chapskii, K. K., Arseniev, B. A. 1976. Mammalia of the Soviet Union. Pinnipeds and Cetacea. Moscow, 1-717 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Higdon, J. W., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Beck, R. M. D., Ferguson, S. H. 2007. Phylogeny and divergence of the pinnipeds (Carnivora: Mammalia) assessed using a multigene dataset. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 216. DOI:10.1186/1471-2148-7216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horikawa, H. 1995. A primitive odobenine walrus of Early Pliocene age from Japan. In: Barnes, L. G., Hasegawa, Y., Inuzuka, N., eds. Th e Island Arc, Special Issue, Evolution and Biogeography of Fossil Marine Vertebrates in the Pacific Realm, Collected Papers from a Symposium Dedicated to the Memory of Arthur Remington Kellogg in the Year of the 100th Anniversary of his Birth - 1992. Proceedings of the 29th International Geological Congress. Kyoto, Japan, 309-328.Google Scholar

  • Howard, L. D. 1975. Muscular Anatomy of the Hind Limb of the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 40, 335-416.Google Scholar

  • Howell, A. B. 1928. Contribution to the Comparative Anatomy of the Eared and Earless Seals (Genera Zalophus and Phoca). Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 73 (15), 1-142.Google Scholar

  • Howell, A. B. 1930. Aquatic mammals. Charles C. Th omas, Baltimore, Maryland. 1-338.Google Scholar

  • Hunt, R. M. Jr., Barnes, L. G. 1994. Basicranial evidence for ursid affi nity of the oldest Pinnipeds. In: Berta, A., Deméré, T. A., eds. Contributions in Marine Mammal Paleontology Honoring Frank C. Whitmore, Jr. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 29, 57-67.Google Scholar

  • Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium; additis, terminis zoographicis utriusque classis, eorumqueversione germanica. C. Salfeld, Berlin, 1-301.Google Scholar

  • Ivanoff , D. V. 2001. Partitions in the carnivoran auditory bulla: their formation and surface for Systematics. Mammal Review, 31, 1-16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jones, K. E., Goswami, A. 2010. Quantitative analysis of the infl uences of phylogeny and ecology on phocid and otariid pinnipeds (Mammalia; Carnivora). Journal of Zoology, 280, 297-308.Google Scholar

  • Jones, K. E., Ruff , C. B., Goswami, A. 2013. Morphology and biomechanics of the pinniped jaw: mandibular evolution without mastication. Anatomical Record, 296, 1049-1063.Google Scholar

  • Kearney, M., Clark, J. M. 2003. Problems due to missing data in phylogentic analyses including fossils: a critical review. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23, 263-274.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kellogg, R. 1922. Pinnipeds from Miocene and Pleistocene deposits of California. University of California Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences, 13, 23-132.Google Scholar

  • Kellogg, A. R. 1931. Pelagic Mammals from the Temblor Formation of the Kern River Region, California. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Series 4, 19, 217-397.Google Scholar

  • King, J. E. 1956. The Monk seals (genus Monachus). Bulletin of Zoology, London: British Museum (Natural History), 3 (5), 201-256.Google Scholar

  • King, J. E. 1964. Seals of the world. London (British Museum, Natural History), 154.Google Scholar

  • King, J. E. 1966. Relationships of the hooded and elephant seal genera Cystophora and Mirounga). British Museum of Natural History, London, 148, 385-398.Google Scholar

  • King, J. E. 1983. Seals of the World. Second Edition, British Museum (Natural History). Ithaca, New York, Comstock Publishing, 1-240.Google Scholar

  • King, J. E. 1989. Otariidae and Phocidae. Fauna of Australia, 1B, 1012-1029.Google Scholar

  • Kohno, N., Barnes, L. G., Hirota, K. 1995. Miocene fossil pinnipeds of the genera Prototaria and Neotherium (Carnivora; Otariidae; Imagotariinae) in the North Pacifi c Ocean: evolution, relationships, and distribution. In: Barnes, L. G., Hasegawa, Y., Inuzuka, N., eds. Th e Island Arc, Special Issue, Evolution and Biogeography of Fossil Marine Vertebrates in the Pacifi c Realm, Collected Papers from a Symposium Dedicated to the Memory of Arthur Remington Kellogg in the Year of the 100th Anniversary of his Birth - 1992. Proceedings of the 29th International Geological Congress.Kyoto, Japan, 3 (4), 285-308.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A. 1986. Modern status of systematics of the Miocene seals of the family Phocidae of the northern Black Sea Province. Abstract of IX All-Union Conference on Marine Mammals. Archangelsk, 206-207 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Koretsky (= Koretskaya), I. A. 1987. Th e position of the genus Praepusa in the Phocinae System. Praeprint/ Akademii Nauk Ukrainian SSR. Institute of Zoology, 87 (12), 3-7 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Koretsky (= Koretskaya), I. A. 1988. New record of Monachopsis pontica (Pinnipedia: Phocidae) from Neogene deposits of Kerch peninsula. Vestnik Zoologii, 6, 74-76 [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A. 2001. Morphology and systematics of Miocene Phocinae (Mammalia: Carnivora) from Paratethys and the North Atlantic Region. Geologica Hungarica. Ser. Paleontologica, 54, 1-109.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A. 2006. Abstract: One of the Most Primitive of the True Seals, Leptophoca lenis (Carnivora: Phocidae) from the Calvert Formation, Late-Early Miocene. The Geology and Paleontology of Calvert Cliff s. A Symposium of the Calvert Marine Museum. Th e Ecphora Miscellaneous Publications, 1, 22-23.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Ray, C. E. 1994. Cryptophoca, new genus for Phoca maeotica (Mammalia: Pinnipedia: Phocinae) from Upper Miocene deposits in the northern Black Sea region. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 107, 17-26.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Grigorescu, D. 2002. The fossil monk seal Pontophoca sarmatica (Alekseev) (Mammalia: Phocidae: Monachinae) from the Miocene of eastern Europe. Smithon. Contrib. Paleobiol., 93, 149-162.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Holec, P. 2002. A primitive Seal (Mammalia: Phocidae) from the Early Middle Miocene of Central Paratethys. Smithon. Contrib. Paleobiol., 93, 163-178.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Sanders, A. 2002. Paleontology of the Late Oligocene Ashley and Chandler Bridge Formations of South Carolina, 1: Paleogene Pinniped Remains; Th e Oldest Known Seal (Carnivora: Phocidae). Smithon. Contrib. Paleobiol., 93, 179-184.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A, Barnes, L. G. 2003. Origins and relationships of pinnipeds, and the concepts of monophyly versus diphyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23, 69A.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Barnes, L. G. 2006. Pinniped evolutionary history and paleogeography. In: Csiki, Z., ed. Mesozoic and Cenozoic vertebrates and paleoenvironments. Tribute to the career of Professor Dan Grigorescu. ArsDocendi, Bucharest, 143-153.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Barnes, L. G. 2008. Phocidae. In: Janis, C. M., Gunnell, G. F., Uhen, M. D., eds. Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America. Vol. 2: Small Mammals, Xenarthrans, and Marine Mammals. Cambridge University Press, UK, New York, 542-556.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Ray, C. E. 2008. Phocidae of the Pliocene of eastern USA. In: Ray, C. E., Bohaska, D. A., Koretsky, I. A., Ward, L. W., Barnes, L. G., eds. Geology and paleontology of the Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina IV. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Special Publication, 15, 81-140.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Peters, N. 2008. Batavipusa (Carnivora, Phocidae, Phocinae): a new genus from the eastern shore of the North Atlantic Ocean (Miocene seals of the Netherlands, Part II). Deinsea, Annual of the Natural History Museum Rotterdam, Th e Netherlands, 12, 53-62.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Rahmat, S. J. 2013. First record of fossil Cystophorinae (Carnivora, Phocidae): middle Miocene seals from the northern Paratethys. Revista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafi a, 119, 325-350.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Domning, D. P. 2014. One of the oldest seals (Carnivora, Phocidae) from the old world. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 34, 224-229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Rahmat, S. J., Peters, N. 2014. Rare late Miocene seal taxa (Carnivora, Phocidae) from the North Sea Basin. Vestnik Zoologii, 48, 419-432.Google Scholar

  • Koretsky, I. A., Rahmat, S. J. 2015. A new species of the subfamily Devinophocinae (Carnivora, Phocidae) from the Central Paratethys. Revista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafi a, 121, 1-17.Google Scholar

  • Ling, J. K. 1965. Functional significance of sweat glands and sebaceous glands in seals. Nature, 208, 560-562.Google Scholar

  • Matthew, W. D. 1909. The Carnivora and Insectivora of the Bridger Basin, Middle Eocene. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 9 (6), 291-567.Google Scholar

  • McKenna, M. C., Bell, S. K. 1997. Classification of mammals above the species level. Columbia University Press, New York, 1-631.Google Scholar

  • McLaren, I. A. 1960 a. On the origin of the Caspian and Baikal seals and the paleoclimatological implications. American Journal of Science, 258, 47-65.Google Scholar

  • McLaren, I. A. l960 b. Are the Pinnipedia biphyletic? Systematic Zoology, 9, 18-28.Google Scholar

  • McLaren, I. A. 1975. A speculative overview of phocid evolution. Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 169, 43-48.Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, E. D. 1966. The Miocene pinniped Allodesmus. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 61, 1-105.Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, E. D. 1967. Controversy over diphyly in pinnipeds. Systematic Zoology, 16 (4) 350-351.Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, E. D. 1968. The Mio-Pliocene pinniped. Imagotaria Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 25 (9), 1843-1900.Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, E. D. 1975. Parallelism and convergence in the evolution of Otariidae and Phocidae. Rapports et Proces-verbaux des Reunions, Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 169, 12-26.Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, E. D., Tedford, R. H. 1973. The Enaliarctinae: A new group of extinct aquatic Carnivora and a consideration of the origin of the Otariidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 151 (3), 201-284.Google Scholar

  • Mivart, St. G. 1885. Notes on the Pinnipedia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London, 484-500.Google Scholar

  • Muizon, C. de. 1981 a. Les vertébrés fossiles de la formation Pisco (Pérou). Première partie. Deux nouveaux Monachinae (Phocidae, Mammalia) du Pliocène du Sud-Sacaco. Institut Français d’Études Andines, 6, 1-150, pls. 1-11.Google Scholar

  • Muizon, C. de. 1981 b. Le grand voyage des Phoques. La Recherche, Paris, 12, 750-752.Google Scholar

  • Muizon, C. de. 1981 c. Une interprétation fonctionnelle et phylogénétique de l’insertion du psoas major chez les Phocidae. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Academie des Sciences Sér. III. Sciences de la Vie, 292 (11), 687-690.Google Scholar

  • Muizon, C. de. 1982. Les relations phylogenetiques des Lutrinae (Mustelidae, Mammalia). Geobios, Memoire special, 6, 259-272.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Muizon, C. de. 1992. Paläontologie. In: Duguy, R., Robineau, D., eds. Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas 6. Meeressäuger 2. Robben-Pinnipedia. AULA Verlag,Wiesbaden, 34-41.Google Scholar

  • Muizon, C. de, Hendey, Q. B. 1980. Late Tertiary seals of the South Atlantic Ocean. Annals of The South African Museum, 2, 91-128.Google Scholar

  • Nilsson, S. 1841. Entwurf einer systematischen Eintheilung und speziellen Beschreibung der Phoken… [transl. by W. Peters]. Archives Naturgeschichte, Jahrbuch, 7 (1), 301-333.Google Scholar

  • Nyakatura, K., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2012. Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates. BMC Biology. 10:12 DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-10-12CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ognev, S. I. 1935. Mammals of the USSR and adjacent countries. Carnivora. Glavpushnina, Moscow, Leningrad, 3 1-752 [In Russian, English translations by Birron, A. and Coles, Z. S. for Israel Program for Scientific translations, 1962].Google Scholar

  • Pavlinov, I. J., Rossolimo, O. L. 1987. Systematics of Mammalia of the Soviet Union. Moscow University [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Perry, E. A., Carr, S. M., Barlett, S. E., Davidson, W. S. 1995. A phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of reproductive behavior in pagophilic seals of the Northwest Atlantic as indicated by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Journal of Mammalogy, 76 (1), 22-31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Polly, P. D. 2008. Adaptive Zones and the Pinniped Ankle: A 3D Quantative Analysis of Carnivoran Tarsal Evolution. In: Sargis, E. and Dagosto, M., eds. Mammalian Evolutionary Morphology: A Tribute to Frederick S. Szalay. Klumer/Premium, New York, 1-40.Google Scholar

  • Piérard, J. 1971. Osteology and myology of the Weddell seal Leptophoca weddelli Lesson, 1826. In: Burt, W. H., ed. Antarctic Pinnipedia. Antarctic Ress Ser. Nat. Acad. Sci. Nat. Res. Center, 18, 53-108.Google Scholar

  • Ray, C. E. 1976. Phoca wymani and other Tertiary seals (Mammalia: Phocidae) described from the eastern seaboard of North America. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 28, 1-36.Google Scholar

  • Ray, C. E. 1977. Geography of phocid evolution. Systematic Zoology, 25, 391-406.Google Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A. 1972 a. Pleistocene deposits in Alaska. Alaskan North Slope. Quaternary Research, 19, 356-372.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A. 1972 b. Underwater hearing in seals: functional morphology, In: Harrison, R. J., ed. Functional anatomy of marine mammals, Vol.1. Academic Press, London and New York, 307-331.Google Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A. 1975. Otarioid evolution. Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 169, 27-33.Google Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A. 1976. Adaptive evolution of sea lions and walruses. Systematic Zoology, 25 (4), 375-390.Google Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A. 1990. Technical comments: Oldest pinniped. Science, 248 (4954), 499.Google Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A., Ray, C. E. 1977. The origin of the Hawaiian Monk seal. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 89 (58) 667-688.Google Scholar

  • Repenning, C. A., Tedford, R. H. 1977. Otarioid seals of the Neogene. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 992, 1-93.Google Scholar

  • Robinette, H., Stains, H. J. 1970. Comparative study of the calcanea of the Pinnipedia. Journal of Mammalogy, 51 (3), 1-527.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rybczynski, N., Dawson, M. R., Tedford, R. H. 2009. A semi-aquatic Arctic mammalian carnivore from the Miocene epoch and origin of Pinnipedia. Nature, 458, 1021-1024.Google Scholar

  • Sarich, V. M. 1969 a. Pinniped phylogeny. Systematic Zoology, 18, 416-422.Google Scholar

  • Sarich, V. M. 1969 b. Pinniped origins and the rate of evolution of carnivore albumins. Systematic Zoology, 18, 286-295.Google Scholar

  • Sato, J. J., Hosoda, T., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of Arctoids (Mammalia: Carnivora) with emphasis on phylogenetic and taxonomic positions of the ferret-badgers and skunks. Zoological Science, 21, 111-118.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sato, J. J., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., Hosoda, T., Yamaguchi, Y., Hiyama, K., Kobayashi, M., Minami, S. 2006. Evidence from Nuclear DNA Sequences Sheds Light on the Phylogenetic Relationships of Pinnipedia: Single Origin with Affinity to Musteloidea. Zoological Sciences, 23, 125-146.Google Scholar

  • Scheffer, V. B. 1958. Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses, A Review of the Pinnipedia. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar

  • Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classifi cation and a classifi cation of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 85, 1-350.Google Scholar

  • Sokolov, V. E. 1979. Systematics of Mammals: Cetacea, Pinnipedia, Carnivora, Tubulidentia, Tylopoda, Perissodactyla. Higher School, Moscow [In Russian].Google Scholar

  • Tarasoff , F. J. 1972. Comparative Aspects of the Hind Limbs of the River Otter, Sea Otter and Seals. In: Harrison, R. J., ed. Functional Anatomy of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, London and New York, 333-359.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, M. E. 1989. Locomotor adaptations by carnivores. In: Gittleman, J. L., ed. Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 382-409.Google Scholar

  • Tedford, R. H. 1976. Relationship of pinnipeds to other carnivores (Mammalia). Systematic Zoology, 25 (4), 363-374.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tedford, R. H., Barnes, L. G., Ray, C. E. 1994. The Early Miocene Littoral Ursoid Carnivoran Kolponomos: Systematics and Mode of Life. In: Berta, A., Deméré, T. A., eds. Contributions In Marine Mammal Paleontology Honoring Frank C. Whitmore, Jr. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 29, 11-32.Google Scholar

  • Trouessart, E. L. 1897. Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium, nova editio (prima completa), 2. Carnivora, Pinnipedia, Rodentia 1. R. Friedländer & Sohn, Berolini, 219-452.Google Scholar

  • Trouessart, E. L. 1904. Primates, Prosimiae, Chiroptera, Insectivora, Carnivora, Pinnipedia. Fascicle I. In: Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Quinquennale supplementum, anno. R. Friedländer & Sohn Berlin, iv + 288.Google Scholar

  • Trouessart, E. L. 1905. Cetacea, Edentata, Marsupialia, Allotheria, Monotremata. Fascicle IV. In: Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Quinquennale supplementum. R. Friedländer & Sohn Berlin, vii + 753-929.Google Scholar

  • Valenzuela-Toro, A. M., Pyenson, N. D., Gutstein, C. S., Suarez, M. E. 2016. A new dwarf seal from the late Neogene of South America and the evolution of pinnipeds in the Southern hemisphere. Papers in Paleontology, 2, 101-115.Google Scholar

  • Van Beneden, P. J. 1877. Description des ossements fossiles des environs d’Anvers, 1. Pinnipèdes ou amphithèriens. Musée Royal d’Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Annales, 1, 1-88.Google Scholar

  • Weber, M. 1904. Die Säugetiere: Einführung in die Anatomie und Systematik der recenten und fossilen Mammalia. Jena, xii + 866.Google Scholar

  • Wiig, Ø. 1983. On the relationships of Pinnipeds to other carnivores. Zoologica Scripta, 12 (3), 225-227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wolf, J. O., Gunther, R. D. 1985. Why are aquatic mammals so large? Oikos, 45, 365-373.Google Scholar

  • Wolsan, M. 1993. Phylogeny and classifi cation of early European Mustelidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). Acta heriologica, 38 (4), 345-384.Google Scholar

  • Wolsan, M., Sato, J. J. 2010. Eff ects of data incompleteness on the relative performance of parsimony and Bayesian approaches in a supermatrix phylogenetic reconstruction of Mustelidae and Procyonidae (Carnivora). Cladistics, 26, 168-194.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wortman, J. L. 1894. Osteology of Patriofelis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 6 (5), 129-164.Google Scholar

  • Wortman, J. L. 1906. A new fossil seal from the marine Miocene of the Oregon coast. Science, New series, 24, 89-92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wozencraft , C. 1989. The phylogeny of the Recent Carnivora. In: Gittleman, J. L., ed. Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. Cornell Univ. Press, New York, 495-535.Google Scholar

  • Wyss, A. R. 1987. The walrus auditory region and monophyly of pinnipeds. American Museum Novitates, 2871, 1-31. Wyss, A. R. 1988 a. Evidence from fl ipper structure for a single origin of pinnipeds. Nature, 334, 427-428.Google Scholar

  • Wyss, A. R. 1988 b. On “retrogression” in the evolution of the Phocinae and phylogenetic affinities of the monk seals. American Museum Novitates, 2924, 1-38.Google Scholar

  • Wyss, A. R. 1989. Flippers and pinniped phylogeny. Has the problem of convergence been overrated? Marine Mammal Science, 5, 343-375.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wyss, A. R. 1994. The evolution of body size in phocids: some ontogenetic and phylogenetic observations. In: Berta, A., Deméré, T. A., eds. Contributions in Marine Mammal Paleontology Honoring Frank C.Google Scholar

  • Whitmore, Jr. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 29, 69-77.Google Scholar

  • Wyss, A. R., Flynn, J. J. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. In: Szalay, F. S., Novacek, M. J., McKenna, M. C., eds. Mammal phylogeny: Placentals. Springer-Verlag, New York, 32-52.Google Scholar

  • Yonezawa, T., Kohno, N., Hasegawa, M. 2009. The monophyletic origin of sea lions and fur seals (Carnivora: Otariidae) in the Southern Hemisphere. Gene, 441, 89-99.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-05-12

Accepted: 2016-06-15

Published Online: 2016-11-08

Published in Print: 2016-08-01


Citation Information: Vestnik Zoologii, ISSN (Online) 2073-2333, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/vzoo-2016-0040.

Export Citation

© by S. J. Rahmat. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in