|
Post by johannes on Oct 4, 2016 20:08:18 GMT 10
peerj.com/preprints/755/ Or is this just a crackpot theory, like "elephants are dicynodonts"/"rabbits are triconodonts"?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Oct 5, 2016 6:19:28 GMT 10
Might be something in it. Notoryctes (2 species) are listed as marsups in Menkhorst's & Knight's Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, 2001 ed.(pg 52) However, they're "little known" and their "breeding system is unknown".
|
|
|
Post by Surroundx on Oct 14, 2016 20:12:22 GMT 10
Archer, Michael, Beck, Robin, Gott, Miranda, Hand, Suzanne J., Godthelp, Henk and Black, Karen. (2011). Australia's first fossil marsupial mole (Notoryctemorphia) resolves controversies about their evolution and palaeoenvironmental origins. Proc. R. Soc. B 278: 1498–1506.
|
|
|
Post by johannes on Oct 14, 2016 20:59:42 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by johannes on Dec 7, 2016 2:39:32 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Dec 7, 2016 5:34:19 GMT 10
Neogene multi? https: //gwawinapterus.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/commission-patagonia-and-necrolestes/ http: //www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2014.903945 (If gondwanatheres are multis - a rather large if) " it’s been suggested that marsupial moles are living dryolestoids, meaning that Necrolestes may still have modern relatives at least."
Might be something in it. South America and Australia were joined via Antarctica back in the .. whenever? Been any marsupial fossils turned up in Antarctica?
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Dec 7, 2016 6:56:10 GMT 10
Neogene multi? https: //gwawinapterus.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/commission-patagonia-and-necrolestes/ http: //www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2014.903945 (If gondwanatheres are multis - a rather large if) " it’s been suggested that marsupial moles are living dryolestoids, meaning that Necrolestes may still have modern relatives at least."
Might be something in it. South America and Australia were joined via Antarctica back in the .. whenever? Been any marsupial fossils turned up in Antarctica? Yes, marsupial and eutherian fossils have turned up there. I'm not sure about sparassadont? I don't much fancy the Dryolestid marsupial mole thing. Which leads e to wonder if necrolestes was a dryolestid either, it was two of the three who proposed that identity that are putting it forward for Notoryctes.
|
|
|
Post by johannes on Dec 7, 2016 20:29:00 GMT 10
Exoldrover said: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12121/pdfSeymour island has microbiotheres and polydolopids, but no sparassodonts AFAIK. Similar situation with the eutherians: Xenarthans, astrapotheres and liptoterns are present, notungulates aren't.
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Dec 8, 2016 5:31:46 GMT 10
Exoldrover said: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12121/pdfSeymour island has microbiotheres and polydolopids, but no sparassodonts AFAIK. Similar situation with the eutherians: Xenarthans, astrapotheres and liptoterns are present, notungulates aren't. Thank you! It's a half remembered something that's been bugging me for a while. I had this idea that I'd come across a reference to notoungulate fossils being found somewhere surprising, like on one of the islands round there, but I realise now that it was an astrapothere I was thinking of.
|
|