IANIGLA   20881
INSTITUTO ARGENTINO DE NIVOLOGIA, GLACIOLOGIA Y CIENCIAS AMBIENTALES
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
congresos y reuniones científicas
Título:
Eucholaeops (Xenarthra, Tardigrada) remains from the Santa Cruz Formation (Early Miocene), Patagonia, Argentina
Autor/es:
GERARDO, DE IULIIS; FRANÇOIS, PUJOS; MARIA SUSANA, BARGO; SERGIO F., VIZCAÍNO; NESTOR, TOLEDO
Lugar:
Mendoza, Argentina
Reunión:
Congreso; 10th International Mammalogical Congress; 2009
Resumen:
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> Santacrucian (early Miocene) sloths have been known at least since the 1880s, but understanding of their systematics has not changed since the first decade of the 20th century. The plethora of genera and species erected by earlier workers were based in large part on fragmentary remains and, almost certainly, there are many more taxa named that can be justified on the available material. This situation is particularly acute for, among others, Eucholaeops Ameghino, 1887, for which 15 species have been named in the literature. A revision of the Santacrucian sloths has not been attempted so far, mainly because of the imposing nature of the material itself. However, new specimens recovered between 2003 and 2009 by a team from the Museo de La Plata and Duke University, provide a basis for beginning to unravel the chaotic taxonomy of some of these sloths. The remains of Eucholaeops suggest that there are two morphotypes present. The main distinction between the two morphotypes is the size of the caniniforms. This pattern was recognized by W.B. Scott, who suggested these differences were sex related, with males having the larger caniniforms, but other features suggest that these morphotypes do represent distinct species. Review of the type material available in the Museo de La Plata (MLP) and Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia” (MACN) suggests that most named species are likely invalid. Which of the proposed names might apply to the two Eucholaeops morphotypes is still under consideration.
rds']