LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Request: Proterocara argentina, A New Fossil Cichlid

Home Forums Ichthyology Request: Proterocara argentina, A New Fossil Cichlid

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Stefan 7 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #301496

    Stefan
    Member

    PROTEROCARA ARGENTINA, A NEW FOSSIL CICHLID FROM THE LUMBRERA FORMATION, EOCENE OF ARGENTINA

    http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1671/0272…FC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

    #344107

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Will send you in the am – Adobe on Google Chrome not working at the moment for some reason.

    #344109

    Stefan
    Member

    Cheers for that!

    #344158

    Stefan
    Member

    Does anyone else want it? I have it now.

    #344200

    Graham Ramsay
    Participant

    If I’m reading this correctly the age of this species is “early eocene” which would be about 50 million years old?

    At that time Africa and S. America were already well apart. The origin of the cichlid family is widely believed to be Africa so this species has already either crossed the young S. Atlantic or has evolved from species that did so.

    The Phylogenetic tree shows it be nested firmly within the extant S. American fishes which suggestes (to me) that a fair amount of cichlid evolution had already taken place in S. America by the time this fish was preserved in the mud of a S. American lake.

    Is this a reasonable view?

    #344234

    Stefan
    Member

    You raise an interesting point. I have not read the paper yet so unfortunately I cannot comment yet on that view.

    #344539

    Graham Ramsay
    Participant

    This paper argues for a much earlier divergence of the S. American, African and Malagasy/Indian cichlids. Far enough back (120mya) to allow for vicariant divergance during the time when Africa and S. America were first drifting apart. (Still an issue with the Malagasy/Indian split though).

    I’ve always thought this much more likely than a subsequent trans oceanic dispersal (or even multiple dispersals). Would be nice to find some early fossils mind you.

    #344570

    Stefan
    Member

    I like the points you raise; as soon as I’ve read it (fossil paper) I’ll join the discussion

    Author
    Posts
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.