Antilopine Antelopes: Dwarf Antelopes of Eastern and Central Africa

Oribi

The term "dwarf antelope" can reasonably be applied to many different kinds of antelope that are smaller than, say a typical goat. In this common sense, it's not a precise term, and could refer to species that belong to quite different branches of the antelope family tree. When mammalian zoologists used the term in the 20th century, however, it was often more precise, referring to those thought to be most closely related to the gazelles as a branch within the "antilopine" subfamily of "typical" antelopes.

Technically, these dwarf antelopes were collectively referred to as "neotragines" and assumed to be a natural grouping within the antelopes more widely. Genetic analysis over the last couple of decades has muddied these waters considerably, not least because the genus for which the branch was named, Neotragus, turns out not to be closely related to the gazelles, and is something else entirely. Even if we look solely at those dwarf antelopes that we can still say belong to the antilopine subfamily, it turns out that they don't have a single common ancestor. Specifically, one of them is more closely related to gazelles than it is to any of the other members of its purported evolutionary branch. 

Oligocene (Pt 11): Early Monkeys and Two-Ton Herbivores

Arsinoitherium

Because the Oligocene is so much further back in time than the later epochs, especially the Pliocene and Pleistocene, there are more gaps in our knowledge of it. That it's also much shorter than the epochs to either side of it means that those gaps can, proportionately speaking, occupy far more of its length. One of the places where such a gap is particularly noticeable is the history of primates.

Monkeys first appeared in Africa in the latter half of the preceding epoch, but their early record is patchy. This is likely because many of the earliest monkeys lived in areas that simply weren't conducive to forming fossils - although the fact that many parts of Africa have not had the same detailed paleontological surveys that other continents have may also be a factor. Much of the history of the primates during the epoch is a blank... but not entirely.

700th Synapsida

Well, here we are again with another biennial look-back at the last 100 posts, highlighting what may have been missed and taking a brief peek at where I might go next. I can't say it's entirely gone without a hitch over the last couple of years, but I've mostly kept to the weekly schedule... although you might get more regular gaps in the summer going forward.

Evolution remained the single most common category for the past 100 posts, which is hardly surprising given how many are about extinct species, and how important it can be to understanding how the living ones got to be the way they are. However, diet and habitat, which are often linked, have overtaken animal behaviour to nab the second and third spots... although the latter has remained common. Since I pick most topics on the day, without any grand plan to even things out, that's probably just the vagaries of what I happen to have come across. 

Hair, Fur, Bristles, and Spines

Trinomys

Hair is one of the key defining features of mammals. Apart from cetaceans, such as dolphins, no mammals are entirely hairless, although, for example, hippos and some babirusa species come very close. The original purpose of hair was almost certainly to maintain body heat, something that matters to warm-blooded animals in a way that it doesn't to, say, reptiles. Since then, however, hair has adapted to fulfil many other functions as well.

To begin with, there is colouration, a function that hair needs to take over once it obscures the skin. The most obvious way that hair colour can help an animal is camouflage. While this is instinctively true, there have been statistical studies that demonstrate certain hair colours are, indeed, more common in animals living in certain environments. For instance, multi-species analyses of lagomorphs and cloven-footed mammals have shown that animals with grey fur are more likely to live in rocky environments. The same studies, as well as similar ones on carnivores, show that pale fur is associated with open environments, especially deserts, while dark fur is most common in those animals living in jungles, dense forests, or heavily vegetated swamps. And, surely to the surprise of almost nobody, white fur is associated with the Arctic, or with the winter coats of those living where it snows.

Antilopine Antelopes: Dwarf Antelopes of southern Africa

Steenbok

The "antilopine" subfamily of antelopes, so named because it happens to include the first animal scientifically described as an antelope rather than a goat, is itself divided into at least two major branches. There may or may not also be minor ones, depending on what you think is worthy of naming, but the two main ones are quite clear, and perhaps separated from one another around 12 million years ago towards the end of the Middle Miocene.

One of these groups contains the gazelles, along with the springbok, some other gazelle-like animals, and that "first" antelope mentioned above, the blackbuck. These are, for the most part, smallish slender, fast-running antelopes living in arid or semi-arid habitats in both Africa and Asia. The second group are the dwarf antelopes, found only in Africa and quite visibly different from gazelles. 

Unravelling the History of Seals

Allodesmus, a desmatophocid

Trying to determine the largest patterns in evolution can be a daunting task. Here, we often want to look at large numbers of species, comparing the living ones and filling in the gaps with fossils that are often incomplete, ambiguous, or that simply haven't been discovered yet. As a result, there are several big transitions in mammalian evolutionary history that we'd like to get a better look at. Bats are a significant case in point; their small fragile skeletons don't preserve well if we want to see more than teeth, and how they developed their forelimbs into wings remains obscure.

With some groups, however, we do have sufficient fossil evidence that we can look at a whole group of animals and get some idea, not just of how it originated, or where it fits in the larger mammalian family tree, but what ups and downs it has faced over the course of its existence. This can tell us what alterations in climate or geography drove changes within the group and how and when particularly evolutionary innovations developed.

Mice at the Oak Tree Cafe

Forests, it should come as no surprise, rely on a complex set of interdependencies among the native species. The animals that live in the forests rely on the existence of the trees for shelter or food, or feed on other animals that rely on the trees for food. But the trees also need the animals, or at least some of them.

Obvious examples include the reliance of many plants on insects and other animals for pollination. Another is the fact that plants have edible fruit specifically so that animals will eat them and spread the digestion-resistant seeds in their dung. That doesn't work where the animal obtains nutrition from the seed itself, as is typically the case, for example, of plants that produce nuts. But, even here, the plants may rely on scatter-hoarding.

That is to say, many seed-eating animals in temperate regions store food in caches hidden across the landscape - squirrels being among the better-known examples. Some of those caches won't be found again, or the animal that made them will die from other causes before it has the chance to use them. And then, the seeds can germinate - the great majority won't, but it happens often enough that this simple process is of key importance to the survival and growth of some nut-bearing trees.