Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:04:29.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new box turtle from the Miocene/Pliocene boundary (latest Hemphillian) of Oklahoma and a refined chronology of box turtle diversification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Walter G. Joyce ,
Andrea Petričević ,
Tyler R. Lyson  and
Nicholas J. Czaplewski
Walter G. Joyce
Affiliation:
Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen, Sigwartstraße 10, Tübingen 72076, Germany, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, 170 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA
Andrea Petričević
Affiliation:
Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen, Sigwartstraße 10, Tübingen 72076, Germany,
Tyler R. Lyson
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, 210 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA, Marmarth Research Foundation, Marmarth, North Dakota 58643, USA
Nicholas J. Czaplewski
Affiliation:
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, Oklahoma 73072, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A near complete shell from the Hemphillian 4 (Miocene/Pliocene boundary) Buis Ranch local fauna of Beaver County, Oklahoma, represents a fossil box turtle. An anterior contact of neural III and neural V with costal III and costal V only, respectively, presence of a small contact between the suprapygal and eleventh peripherals, development of a thin peripheral lip for articulation with the posterior plastral lobe, placement of the vertebral III/IV sulcus on neural VII, presence of two anterior musk duct glands, a rounded posterior plastral lobe, an elongate shell outline, and a complete neural series diagnose the fossil as a new species, Terrapene parornata n. sp. A phylogenetic analysis of fossil box turtles places T. parornata along the phylogenetic stem of the extant taxon T. ornata. The holotype of ‘Terrapene longinsulae’ cannot be distinguished from Terrapene ornata and is therefore synonymized. Finally, ‘Terrapene’ corneri lacks characters of crown group Terrapene and may therefore represent a stem box turtle. The provenance of the holotype of ‘Terrapene longinsulae’ is more poorly known than previously recognized and this specimen may originate from Kansas or Nebraska and be early Miocene to late Pleistocene in age. Terrapene parornata is therefore the oldest demonstrable representative of crown group Terrapene (ca. 5.3–4.6 Ma). ‘Terrapene’ corneri from the late Barstovian of Nebraska and fragmentary material from the middle Barstovian of Nebraska by contrast are the oldest representative of the Terrapene lineage (ca. 14.5–11.5 Ma). A review of morphological characters related to shell kinesis reveals that most are highly correlated. The results of the phylogenetic analysis converge upon those of molecular data when these correlated characters are omitted from the analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 86 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 177 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agassiz, L. 1857. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 452 p.Google Scholar
Angielczyk, K. D., Feldman, C. R., and Miller, G. R. 2011. Adaptive evolution of plastron shape in emydine turtles. Evolution, 65:377–394.Google Scholar
Auffenberg, W. 1958. Fossil turtles of the genus Terrapene in Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 3:53–92.Google Scholar
Auffenberg, W. 1967. Further notes on fossil box turtles of Florida. Copeia, 1967:319–325.Google Scholar
Barbour, T., and Stetson, H. C. 1931. A revision of the Pleistocene species of Terrapene of Florida. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 72:295–299.Google Scholar
Batsch, A. J. G. C. 1788. Versuch einer Anleitung, zur Kenntniß und Geschichte der Thiere und Mineralien. Akademische Buchhandlung, Jena, 528 p.Google Scholar
Bell, T. 1825. A monograph of the tortoises having a moveable sternum with remarks on their arrangement and affinities. Zoological Journal, 2:299–310.Google Scholar
Berggren, W. A., Hilgen, F. J., Langereis, C. G., Kent, D. V., Obradovich, J. D., Raffi, I., Raymo, M. E., and Shackleton, N. J. 1995. Late Neogene chronology: New perspectives in high-resolution stratigraphy. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 107:1272–1287.Google Scholar
Bickham, J. W., Lamb, T., Minx, P., and Patton, J. C. 1996. Molecular systematics of the genus Clemmys and the intergeneric relationships of emydid turtles. Herpetologica, 52:89–97.Google Scholar
Bramble, D. M. 1974. Emydid shell kinesis: Biomechanics and evolution. Copeia, 1974:707–727.Google Scholar
Brattstrom, B. H. 1967. A succession of Pliocene and Pleistocene snake faunas from the High Plains of the United States. Copeia, 1967:188–202.Google Scholar
Burke, R. L., Leuteritz, T. E., and Wolf, A. J. 1996. Phylogenetic relationships of emydine turtles. Herpetologica, 52:572–584.Google Scholar
Coker, R. E. 1910. Diversity in the scutes of Chelonia. Journal of Morphology, 21:1–75, pls. 1–14.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1868. On the origin of genera. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1868:242–300.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1870. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 14:1–252.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1878. Descriptions of new Vertebrata from the upper Tertiary formations of the West. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 17:219–231.Google Scholar
Davy, C. M., and Murphy, R. W. 2009. Explaining patterns of deformity in freshwater turtles using MacCulloch's hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 87, 5:433–439.Google Scholar
Dolliver, P. N. 1984. Cenozoic evolution of the Canadian River Basin. Baylor Geological Studies Bulletin, 42:1–96.Google Scholar
Ernst, C. H., Lovich, J. E., and Barbour, R. W. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., 578 p.Google Scholar
Feldman, C. R., and Parham, J. F. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of emydine turtles: Taxonomic revision and the evolution of shell kinesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 22:388–398.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39:783–791.Google Scholar
Fitzinger, L. 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natürlichen Verwandtschaften. Verlag J. G. Heubner, Wien, 66 p.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S., and Meylan, P. A. 1988. A phylogeny of turtles, p. 157–219InBenton, M. J.(ed.), The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Vol. 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds. The Systematics Association Special Vol. 35A. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1927. On fossil turtles from the Pleistocene of Florida. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 71:1–10.Google Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1906. Descriptions of two new genera (Echmatemys and Xenochelys) and two new species (Xenochelys formosa and Terrapene putnami) of fossil turtles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 22:27–31.Google Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1907. Descriptions of seven new species of turtles from the Tertiary of the United States. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 23:847–863.Google Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1908. Descriptions of five species of North American fossil turtles, four of which are new. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 35:161–169.Google Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1916. Descriptions of some Floridian fossil vertebrates. Annual Report of the Florida State Geological Survey, 8:39–76.Google Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1917. Vertebrata mostly from stratum No. 3, at Vero, Florida, together with descriptions of new species. Annual Report of the Florida State Geological Survey, 9:43–68.Google Scholar
Hay, O. P. 1921. Descriptions of some Pleistocene vertebrates found in the United States. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 58:83–146.Google Scholar
Hazard, E. B. 1961. The subgeneric status and distribution in time of Citellus rexroadensis. Journal of Mammalogy, 42:477–483.Google Scholar
Hibbard, C. W. 1954. A new Pliocene vertebrate fauna from Oklahoma. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, 39:339–359.Google Scholar
Hibbard, C. W. 1963. Tanupolama vera (Matthew) from the late Hemphillian of Beaver County, Oklahoma. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences, 66:267–269.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M., and Bull, J. J. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology, 42:182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, J. A. 1973. A new Pliocene snake, genus Elaphe, from Oklahoma. Copeia, 1973:574–580.Google Scholar
Holman, J. A. 1975. Herpetofauna of the WaKeeney Local Fauna of Trego County Kansas. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology, 12:49–66.Google Scholar
Holman, J. A., and Corner, R. G. 1985. A Miocene Terrapene (Testudines: Emydidae) and other Barstovian turtles from south-central Nebraska. Herpetologica, 41:88–93.Google Scholar
Holman, J. A. 1987. Herpetofauna of the Egelhoff site (Miocene: Barstovian) of North-Central Nebraska. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 7:109–120.Google Scholar
Holman, J. A. and Fritz, U. 2005. The box turtle genus Terrapene (Testudines: Emydidae) in the Miocene of the U.S.A. The Herpetological Journal, 15:81–90.Google Scholar
Honey, J. G., Martin, R. A., and Peláez-Campomanes, P. 2005. Stratigraphic framework of early Pliocene fossil localities along the north bank of the Cimarron River, Meade County, Kansas. Ameghiniana, 42:461–472.Google Scholar
Hulbert, R. C. Jr, Czaplewski, N. J., and Webb, S. D. 2005. New records of Pseudhipparion simpsoni (Mammalia, Equidae) from the late Hemphillian of Oklahoma and Florida. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 25:737–740.Google Scholar
Hutchison, J. H., and Bramble, D. M. 1981. Homology of the plastral scales of the Kinosternidae and related turtles. Herpetologica, 37:73–85.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. B. 1992. A Revised Checklist with Distribution Maps of the Turtles of the World. Privately printed, Richmond, Virginia, 363 p.Google Scholar
Izett, G. A., and Honey, J. G. 1995. Geological map of the Irish Flats NE quadrangle, Meade County, Kansas. United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Series Investigations Map I–2498.Google Scholar
Joyce, W. G., and Bell, C. J. 2004 A review of the comparative morphology of extant testudinoid turtles (Reptilia: Testudines). Asiatic Herpetological Research, 10:53–109.Google Scholar
Legler, J. M. 1960. Natural history of the ornate box turtle, Terrapene ornata ornata Agassiz. University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History, 11:527–669.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Vol. 1 (tenth edition). Laurentius Salvius, Holmia, 824 p.Google Scholar
Lynn, W. G. 1937. Variation in scutes and plates in the boxturtle, Terrapene carolina. The American Naturalist, 71:421–426.Google Scholar
Martin, R. A., Honey, J. G., and Peláez-Campomanes, P. 2000. The Meade Basin rodent project: A progress report. Paludicola, 3:1–32.Google Scholar
Martin, R. A., Honey, J. G., Peláez-Campomanes, P., Goodwin, H. T., Baskin, J. A., and Zakrzewski, R. J. 2002. Blancan lagomorphs and rodents of the Deer Park assemblages, Meade County, Kansas. Journal of Paleontology, 76:1072–1090.Google Scholar
Martin, R. A., Hurt, R. T., Honey, J. G., and Peláez-Campomanes, P. 2003. Late Pliocene and early Pleistocene rodents from the northern Borchers Badlands (Meade County, Kansas), with comments on the Blancan–Irvingtonian boundary in the Meade Basin. Journal of Paleontology, 77:985–1001.Google Scholar
McDowell, S. B. 1964. Partition of the genus Clemmys and related problems in the taxonomy of the aquatic Testudinidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 143:239–279.Google Scholar
Merrem, B. 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Johann Christian Krieger, Marburg, 191p.Google Scholar
Milstead, W. M. 1956. Fossil turtles of Friesenhahn Cave, Texas, with the description of a new species of Testudo. Copeia, 1956:162–171.Google Scholar
Milstead, W. W. 1967. Fossil box turtles (Terrapene) from central North America and box turtles of eastern Mexico. Copeia, 1967:168–179.Google Scholar
Milstead, W. W. 1969. Studies on the evolution of the box turtles (genus Terrapene). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 14:1–113.Google Scholar
Minx, P. 1996. Phylogenetic relationships among the box turtles, genus Terrapene. Herpetologica, 52:584–597.Google Scholar
Moodie, K. B., and Van Devender, T. R. 1978. Fossil box turtles (Genus Terrapene) from southern Arizona. Herpetologica, 34:172–174.Google Scholar
Oelrich, T. 1953. A new boxturtle from the Pleistocene of southwestern Kansas. Copeia, 1953:33–38.Google Scholar
Parker, G. H. 1901. Correlated abnormalities in the scutes and bony plates of the carapace of the sculptured tortoise. The American Naturalist, 35:17–24.Google Scholar
Parmley, D., and Holman, J. A. 1995. Hemphillian (late Miocene) snakes from Nebraska, with comments on Arikareean through Blancan snakes of midcontinental North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 15:79–95.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. P., and Owens, D. W. 1944. Amphibians and reptiles of northern Coahuila, Mexico. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 29:97–115.Google Scholar
Smith, H. M., and Smith, R. B. 1979. Synopsis of the Herpetofauna of Mexico, Vol. VI. Guide to Mexican Turtles. Lundberg, Augusta, West Virginia.Google Scholar
Spinks, P. Q., and Shaffer, H. B. 2009. Conflicting mitochondrial and nuclear phylogenies for the widely disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) species complex, and what they tell us about biogeography and hybridization. Systematic Biology, 58:1–20.Google Scholar
Stejneger, L. 1925. New species and subspecies of American turtles. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 15:462–463.Google Scholar
Stevens, M. S. 1966. The osteology and relationships of the Pliocene ground squirrel, Citellus dotti Hibbard, from the Ogallala Formation of Beaver County, Oklahoma. Pearce-Sellards Series, 4:1–24.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP∗. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (∗and other methods). Version 4b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Tedford, R. H., Albright, L. B. III, Barnosky, A. D., Ferrusquía-Villafranca, I., Hunt, R. M. Jr, Storer, J. E., Swisher, C. C. III, Voorhies, M. R., Webb, S. D., and Whistler, D. P. 2004. Mammalian biochronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian interval (late Oligocene through early Pliocene epochs), p. 169–231. InWoodburne, M. O.(ed.), Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Tihen, J. A. 1955. A new Pliocene species of Ambystoma, with remarks on other fossil ambystomids. Contributions to Paleontology, Museum of Paleontology of the University of Michigan, 12:229–244.Google Scholar
Velo-Antón, G., Becker, C. G., and Cordero-Rivera, A. 2011. Turtle carapace anomalies: The roles of genetic diversity and environment. PLoS ONE, 6:e18714.Google Scholar
Waagen, G. N. 1972. Musk glands in recent turtles. M.S. thesis, University of Utah, 64 p.Google Scholar
Werdelin, L. 1985. Small Pleistocene felines of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 5:194–210.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B. 1989. Phylogenetic relationships of Catagonus wagneri: Sister taxa from the Tertiary of North America, p. 281–308. InRedford, K. H. and Eisenberg, J. F.(eds.), Advances in Neotropical Mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R. and Johnson, R. G. 1957. The nature of shield abnormalities in the turtle shell. Fieldiana: Geology, 10:341–362.Google Scholar
Zug, G. R. 1969. Fossil Chelonians, Chrysemys and Clemmys, from the upper Pliocene of Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist, 29:82–87.Google Scholar