Tetrapod Zoology

i-0eb81fd9d9bef5ca5c7b128809f5f824-Strigogyps sapea quick tracing.jpg

You’ll recall me saying recently that 2007 was a good year for publications on phorusrhacids, aka terror birds. And as I discussed in the previous post, one of the most interesting contentions made about phorusrhacids last year was that one of the most remarkable members of the group (super-robust Brontornis from the Miocene) is actually not a phorusrhacid at all. Here we look at recent work on a group of birds that, while initially suggested to be part of the phorusrhacid radiation, now, also, seem not to be. They are the ameghinornithids…

Originally named as a phorusrhacid ‘subfamily’ when first recognised by Cécile Mourer-Chauviré in 1981, Ameghinornithidae first included but a single species, Ameghinornis minor (originally Strigogyps minor Gaillard, 1939) from the Upper Eocene-Lower Oligocene Phosphorites du Quercy (its exact discovery site is unknown). It’s known from a humerus, two coracoids and two carpometacarpi, though whether these elements really belong to the same animal is now doubtful (read on). A second taxon, Aenigmavis sapea Peters, 1987 from the Middle Eocene Grube Messel site was later added to the group and is known from a near-complete specimen and a referred foot (its specific name honours SAPE, the Society of Avian Palaeontology and Evolution, founded in 1985). To my astonishment, I couldn’t find a picture of this specimen (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg SMF-ME 1818) anywhere on the web, nor do I have a pdf I can steal it from, so in the end I resorted to tracing and scanning a drawing. It’s not good, but it could be worse, and it’s shown above. The animal it depicts would have had a total length of about 50 cm.

i-1ef015f73e97f33795e769645011bba7-Eurotamandua again.jpg

During the 1980s and 90s, these flightless or poorly-flighted, grouse-sized birds were imagined as ‘proto-phorusrhacids’, and their presence in Eocene-Oligocene Europe led to numerous speculations as to the possibility of faunal interchange between Europe and South America (e.g, Peters & Storch 1993). The presence in Eocene Europe of the alleged xenarthran Eurotamandua [skeleton and life restoration shown in adjacent image] and of sebecosuchians (on which go here) provided additional support for this supposed link (for a discussion of all this please see the ver 1 post here).

However, phorusrhacid affinities for the ameghinornithids were doubted by Alvarenga & Höfling (2003) who pointed to differences in the proportions of the two groups and to different hindlimb morphologies. Mayr (2005) agreed, noting that ameghinornithids lack the proportionally large skull, deep lower jaw, reduced wing, narrow-shafted, strut-like coracoid, extremely narrow pelvis, strongly reduced hallux and other characters present in the terror birds. He concluded that ameghinornithids are, however, still members of Cariamae, the clade thought to include seriemas and the extinct phorusrhacids, bathornithids and idiornithids (for more on cariamaens and what they are see Giant hoatzins of doom on ver 1).

i-7cddb43c8ef199c08dedc52778af2b71-Neocathartes old recon.jpg

Incidentally, if you’ve ever looked at anything in the palaeornithological literature you’ll be familiar with bathornithids as much as you are with phorusrhacids, for Neocathartes grallator from the Eocene of Wyoming, the long-legged ‘terrestrial vulture’ depicted consistently in all the older literature, is not a vulture at all, but actually a bathornithid ['traditional' restoration shown here]. Time for another famous Storrs Olson quote: ‘The reconstruction published with the original description of Neocathartes has often been reprinted and has now made the ‘terrestrial vulture’ an integral part of the lore of avian paleontology. Well, forget it. Neocathartes is just our old friend Bathornis in another guise’ (Olson 1985, p. 150). I’ve just noticed that wikipedia’s entry on Neocathartes uses exactly the same quote.

Anyway, if ameghinornithids are part of Cariamae, and if they lack the derived characters of Phorusrhacidae, could they still however be ‘proto-phorusrhacids': closer to Phorusrhacidae than to any other group? The answer is probably no, because ameghinornithids don’t just lack the derived characters that characterise phorusrhacids; they also lack the characters that unite phorusrhacids with idiornithids and seriemas (Mayr 2007), in particular the block-like hypotarsus that lacks crests and sulci. By inference they are therefore down at the base of Cariamae.

In a taxonomic revision of the ameghinornithids, Mayr (2005) argued that Ameghinornis and Aenigmavis were both synonymous with Strigogyps Gaillard, 1908: Aenigmavis sapea and S. dubius share detailed tibiotarsal characters and hence should be considered congeneric (S. dubius is only known from a tibiotarsus*), while Ameghinornis minor shares a derived humeral morphology with Aenigmavis sapea, and hence should be regarded as congeneric with Ameghinornis, and hence with Strigogyps too (in these birds, the proximal end of the humerus is very small, the bicipital and deltopectoral crests are reduced, and the humeral head is obliquely oriented relative to the shaft) [if you have a particularly good memory this might sound familiar: I covered it previously on ver 1 here].

* Which was lost when Munich was bombed during WWII. Casts remain however.

i-9549eb7db4841da94d415599e94bf71f-Phorusrhacid carpomets Alvarenga and Hofling.jpg

Mayr (2005) further argued that, given that the Ameghinornis minor humerus (now Strigogyps minor) and S. dubius tibiotarsus both come from Quercy and both represent Strigogyps, they should provisionally be considered as conspecific, so Ameghinornis not only fails to win recognition as a distinct genus, it is (according to Mayr) not even a distinct species. Interestingly, however, the coracoids and carpometacarpi referred to Ameghinornis minor by Mourer-Chauviré (1981) differ from the same elements known from another Strigogyps specimen (a wing from Messel that has the same humeral characters listed above), and hence probably aren’t from an ameghinornithid at all: they might be from a large, flightless idiornithid like Propelargus (Mayr 2005) [adjacent image, from Alvarenga & Höfling 2003, shows phorusrhacid carpometacarpi as well as (E) a carpometacarpus referred to Ameghinornis minor, (F) a seriema carpometacarpus, and (G) a hoatzin carpometacarpus. The 'Ameghinornis minor' carpometacarpus probably doesn't belong to this taxon, but to an idiornithid].

If you’ve found any or all of this a bit difficult to follow, I assure you you’re not alone. I reread Mayr’s 2005 paper about five times and had to draw a little flow-chart before I was on top of all this.

Anyway, here’s where we come to the 2007 stuff again, because Peters (2007) – in a review of current knowledge of the ameghinornithids – contested Mayr’s synonymisations, arguing that Ameghinornis and Aenigmavis are actually different enough from Strigogyps for all to be considered distinct. However, Mayr restated his arguments in another 2007 paper (Mayr 2007). He did more than that however. We’ve looked at hornbills a couple of times on Tet Zoo, and one of the things we’d all like to see is a better fossil record for this group. Long, long ago I mentioned Geiseloceros robustus Lambrecht, 1935, a Middle Eocene bird from Geiseltal in Germany originally regarded as a New World vulture but later classified as a hornbill. There has been widespread suspicion since that Geiseloceros is in fact not a hornbill but, as is the case with so many enigmatic fossils, saying what something isn’t is often all too easy, but the question then remains as to what it is.

The good news is that Mayr (2007) was able to resolve this. Geiseloceros is yet another Palaeogene bird very similar to Strigogyps (as evidenced by that distinctive humeral morphology again), and it thereby becomes Strigogyps robustus. Consisting of forelimb and pectoral bones, the specimen was found adjacent to another specimen also identified by Lambrecht as a New World vulture: the holotype of Eocathartes robustus (you’d think Lambrecht could have been a bit more imaginative on the specific names). It consists of hindlimb and pelvic elements, and you might not be surprised to learn that some workers have suggested that both ‘taxa’ represent the different halves of the same individual. Comparison with other Strigogyps specimens (like the Messel S. sapea holotype) confirms this (Mayr 2007).

i-d89ea9d300bbf9631c7c6bde0473d3d9-Rufous-vented chachalaca wikipedia.jpg

So it would seem that we have another ameghinornithid to add to the list. What can we now say about what these birds looked like, and how they lived? Unlike phorusrhacids, ameghinornithids did not have proportionally large skulls, and overall they appear to have been proportioned like certain gamebirds, or like trumpeters (aka psophiids). Ameghinornithid lower arm bones are proportionally short and, as we’ve seen, the crests on their humeri are comparatively small. These features indicate that they were flightless or near-flightless: if capable of flight, it was probably only weak gliding.

The tarsometatarsus is also proportionally short and the hallux was large, so they don’t appear to have been cursorial (unlike phorusrhacids), and the proportionally long femur (it’s much longer than the tarsometatarsus in S. sapea) led Alvarenga & Höfling (2003) to compare these birds with perching or climbing forms like parrots, pigeons and guans and curassows. Their foot anatomy suggests some climbing or perching ability of a sort similar to that present in guans and chachalacas, but note that I say this based on cursory comparison and am not aware of any detailed work comparing the phalangeal proportions of these birds. Mayr (2007) preferred the idea of terrestrial habits, and noted that the ‘Eocathartes‘ pelvis resembles that of Cariama [image above shows Rufous-vented chachalaca Ortalis ruficauda, from wikipedia. Similar to an ameghinornithid?].

i-cc17ec5965370cfe4a485614d298c613-Psophia crepitans wikipedia.jpg

All in all, it looks like ameghinornithids might have lived like guans, curassows and other tropical galliforms, but it’s also been noted that they’re similar in some respects (like tarsometatarsal morphology) to the trumpeters [Grey-backed trumpeter Psophia crepitans shown here, from wikipedia]. Guans, chachalacas and trumpeters are all omnivorous generalists that eat plants and small animals, and at the moment I think it’s reasonable to imagine this sort of lifestyle for the ameghinornithids. Peters (2007) wrote that ameghinornithid foot claws are ‘powerful’ and ‘raptor-like’. To me, they don’t look as slender and curved as do the foot claws of many raptors, but again this observation is, well, just an observation and proper work on claw curvature and so on remains to be done. In fact a detailed comparative analysis of these birds is still lacking, and I’ve only scratched the surface here. There don’t appear to be any good ameghinornithid life restorations kicking around – there’s something on wikipedia but I can’t say I think very highly of it.

Yet again, what was meant to be a brief aside of a few hundred words has grown into a full article. This means that I still haven’t finished the phorusrhacid stuff – more soon…

Refs – –

Alvarenga, H. M. F. & Höfling, E. 2003. Systematic revision of the Phorusrhacidae (Aves: Ralliformes). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo 43, 55-91.

Mayr, G. 2005. “Old World phorusrhacids” (Aves, Phorusrhacidae): a new look at Strigogyps (“Aenigmavis“) sapea (Peters 1987). PaleoBios 25, 11-16.

– . 2007. Synonymy and actual affinities of the putative Middle Eocene “New World vulture” Eocathartes Lambrecht, 1935 and “hornbill” Geiseloceros Lambrecht, 1935 (Aves, Ameghinornithidae). Paläontologische Zeitschrift 81, 457-462.

Mourer-Chauviré, C. 1981. Première indication de la présence de Phorusrhacidés, famille d’oiseaux géants d’Amérique du Sud, dans le Tertaire européen: Ameghinornis nov. gen. (Aves, Ralliformes) des Phosphorites du Quercy, France. Géobios 14, 637-647.

Olson, S. L. 1985. The fossil record of birds. In Avian Biology, Volume III, pp. 79-238.

Peters, D. S. 2007. The fossil family Ameghinornithidae (Mourer-Chauviré 1981): a short synopsis. Journal of Ornithology 148, 25-28.

– . & Storch, G. 1993. South American relationships of Messel birds and mammals. Kaupia 3, 263-269.

Comments

  1. #1 David Marjanovi?
    June 13, 2008

    Please show us the flowchart! :-)

    Another link between South America and Europe was the supposedly ceratophryid frog Thaumastosaurus, which has recently turned out to be… errrrr… well, it’s not more similar to the ceratophryids than to other frogs in any case.

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?
    June 13, 2008

    (That’s a big frog with a sculptured skull from the Eocene of western Europe.)

  3. #3 Darren Naish
    June 13, 2008

    No need to explain David, everyone will of course remember Thaumastosaurus from the ghost frog/basal hyloid article. The whole South America-Europe link was touched on there too.

  4. #4 johannes
    June 13, 2008

    > The presence in Eocene Europe of the alleged xenarthran Eurotamandua

    This might be a stupid question, but how could anybody consider an animal without xenarthran joints a xenarthran?

  5. #5 Andreas Johansson
    June 13, 2008

    Sorry to bring up a linguistics point again, but surely a member of the Cariamae should be a “cariman”, or possibly “cariam(a)ean”, not a “cariamaen”?

  6. #6 Andreas Johansson
    June 13, 2008

    Drat. The first of those is of course supposed to say “cariaman”.

  7. #7 Graham King
    June 13, 2008

    Cariama cristata and Chunga burmeisteri. Two names I’ve remembered from somewhere for some reason from a couple of decades back and which now, reminded, I’ve looked up to find they are species names of seriema. Memory is a strange and wonderful thing.
    PS I believe I read them on the box blurb of a plastic model kit of Phorusrhacos. Although it was labelled ‘Phororhacos’ back then.

  8. #8 Darren Naish
    June 13, 2008

    Johannes wrote…

    This might be a stupid question, but how could anybody consider an animal without xenarthran joints a xenarthran?

    In Storch’s 1981 description of Eurotamandua, rugose areas adjacent to the anapophyses on posterior thoracics/anterior lumbars were interpreted as accessory xenarthrous articular surfaces. So Eurotamandua was considered to be xenarthrous. The detailed photos published by Szalay & Shrenk (1998) show that the anapophyses of Eurotamandua are not dorsoventrally deep, nor do they have dorsal and ventral articular processes (as they do in xenarthrans), and the supposed articular areas on the sides of the centrum are artifacts and unlike the two distinct facets present in xenarthrans.

    Andreas wrote…

    surely a member of the Cariamae should be a “cariman”, or possibly “cariam(a)ean”, not a “cariamaen”?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the huge amount of inconsistency we see in the formulation of vernacular names indicates that there aren’t really any hard rules, and I prefer to go with what looks sensible than with what might be etymologically bestest (that was a joke). Members of the clade Tetanurae, for example, have been called tetanurines, tetanurans, and tetanuraens. My preference is that names ending in -ae become ‘-aen’.

  9. #9 David Marjanovi?
    June 13, 2008

    What is an anapophysis?

  10. #10 Darren Naish
    June 13, 2008

    What is an anapophysis?

    Cough splutter (spits out coffee) – – surely you jest? Alternative sarcastic answer: I don’t suppose you’ve heard of this new fangled ‘google’ thing?

  11. #11 Andreas Johansson
    June 13, 2008

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the huge amount of inconsistency we see in the formulation of vernacular names indicates that there aren’t really any hard rules, and I prefer to go with what looks sensible than with what might be etymologically bestest (that was a joke). Members of the clade Tetanurae, for example, have been called tetanurines, tetanurans, and tetanuraens. My preference is that names ending in -ae become ‘-aen’.

    Google suggests that “tetanuran” is far and away more common than “tetanurine” or “tetanuraen”. (2560, 383, and 4 hits respectively. “Tetanurean” gets 7 and “tetanuraean” 0.)

    I’ll disagree that “tetanuraen” looks at all sensible, but that’s essentially aesthetic and no doubt influenced by the to me transparent etymology.

  12. #12 Darren Naish
    June 13, 2008

    Hmm, I forgot that I’m totally inconsistent, as I always use tetanuran. Oh well. I’ll put that down to peer-pressure… don’t get me started on ‘ornithurines’ and ‘enantiornithines’ (indeed, there is now an effort from some corners to get these changed).

    Anyway, so maybe it should be ‘cariaman’. Cariamaeans and tetanuraeans?? No thanks.. language exists to serve us, not the other way round. Ha! That at least should irritate the linguists :)

  13. #13 Dr. Nick
    June 14, 2008

    Darren wrote…

    Andreas wrote…

    surely a member of the Cariamae should be a “cariman”, or possibly “cariam(a)ean”, not a “cariamaen”?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the huge amount of inconsistency we see in the formulation of vernacular names indicates that there aren’t really any hard rules, and I prefer to go with what looks sensible than with what might be etymologically bestest (that was a joke).

    Yeah, maybe, but that -aen at the end just looks really awkward to me (I’m not even sure how I’d pronounce it), and the adjective suffix in question pretty consistently has the form -an. I guess I’d go with “cariaman”; I also use “tetanuran”.

    Of course, techically “Cariamae” is a plural noun, the singular of which is “cariama”.

  14. #14 Nathan Myers
    June 14, 2008

    Quibbling on the dig at linguists… the linguists I know best of would agree with your statement. It’s the linguists’ nemeses, the prescriptivist grammarians, who seek to grind us beneath language’s hobnailed boot-heel (or something; better ask). This gives me the opportunity to promote my favorite linguists’ blog: Language Log, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ , in which linguists excoriate business consultants who insist that the Chinese word for “crisis” is composed from signs for “disaster” and “opportunity”, and that Eskimos have 220 words for snow, and that either has (were it true) any significance.

  15. #15 David Marjanovi?
    June 14, 2008

    First Google hit for “anapophysis”: “An accessory process on the dorsal side of the transverse process of the lumbar vertebrae in humans and other.”

    Cough splutter (spits out coffee) – – surely you jest?

    Not at all. It’s not Google that’s newfangled, it’s mammals that are newfangled. What do I care about the anatomical details of something so young? I know what basapophyses are and who has them. That’s enough. =8-)

  16. #16 Brian
    June 14, 2008

    Is it likely that falconids might have something to do with those early Cariamae? I believe that Livesy & Zusi placed seriemas and falcons close together, falconids lack a proper (universally recognised) fossil record before the Neogene, falconids appear to be ancestrally from South America and if caracaras are any indication as to what basal Falcones looked and behaved like, it might not be too far-fetched to consider them as derived from something like an ameghinornithid. Is there any character that would preclude falconids from being close to Cariamae…or even being Cariamae themselves?

    If this were the case, I’m sure that Storrs Olson would be delighted!:)

    Also, is there any firm reason to believe cunampaiids might be Cariamae or something close to falconids?

  17. #17 Pavel I. Volkov
    June 14, 2008

    So, European phorusracid is not phorusracid. Eurotamandua is not a xenarthran. The former argument for early Cenozoic faunal interchange between Old and New World is only a mistake. But what about the appearing of wide-nosed monkeys in New World? How did they appear in New World?
    Sorry for a kind of offtop.

  18. #18 Christopher Taylor
    June 14, 2008

    Is it likely that falconids might have something to do with those early Cariamae?

    Ericson et al. (2006) also found Cariamidae and Falconidae as sister taxa in some of their trees, though in the full tree relationships within the Passeriformes + Psittaciformes + Cariamidae + Falconidae clade were unresolved (IIRC).

  19. #19 David Marjanovi?
    June 15, 2008

    But what about the appearing of wide-nosed monkeys in New World? How did they appear in New World?

    Must have rafted from Africa, like the caviomorph rodents.

  20. #20 Lars Dietz
    June 15, 2008

    “I believe that Livesy & Zusi placed seriemas and falcons close together”

    No, falcons were nested in the Falconiformes as sister to Pandion, and seriemas sister to bustards in the gruiformes. I don’t know of any morphological analysis that placed them together, but I haven’t seen any that included both falconids and any fossil cariamans. By the way, is there any evidence for a South American origin of Cariamae? Ameghinornithids are from Europe, Bathornithids from N. America, and Idiornithids are known from Europe and Africa. Salmila, possibly the most basal cariaman, is also from Europe.

    “Also, is there any firm reason to believe cunampaiids might be Cariamae or something close to falconids?”

    Cunampaia is actually a crocodile, according to this paper:
    Agnolin, F. L., and Pais, D. F., 2006, Revision de Cunampaia simplex Rusconi, 1946 (Crocodylomorpha, Mesoeucrocodylia; non Aves) del Terciario Inferior de Mendoza, Argentina: Rev. Mus. Argentino Cienc. Nat., n.s., v. 8, n. 1, p. 35-40.
    Available online at:
    http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/cont_Publicaciones/Rns-Vol08-1_035-040.pdf

  21. #21 Darren Naish
    June 15, 2008

    For discussion of Ericson et al.’s 2006 study and its implications as goes phorusrhacid/cariamaen phylogeny (these authors recovered a clade that included seriemas, passerines, parrots and falconids), see the ‘giant hoatzin’ article on ver 1 (here).

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.