Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz? - Wolf-Ekkehard ...

295Borophaginae-Arten fehlt jedenfalls (sie müsste in eindeutig älteren geologischenFormationen von einer der Hesperocyoninae-Arten u. a. zu "primitiveren"Archaeocyon-Arten und von dort u. a. zu Otarocyon 557 und mit vielen weiterentransitional forms zu den übrigen Borophaginae-Arten führen.Oxetocyon, eine weitere 'fortschrittliche' Borophaginae-Art, erscheint übrigensgleichzeitig mit Archaeocyon (beide Whitnyan) und die 'fortschrittlichste' Formin dieser Serie, Leptocyon (die erste fossil nachgewiesene Art der UnterfamileCaninae), ist zeitgleich (Orellan) mit dem 'fortschrittlichen Fuchs' Otarocyon("For all its unique morphology, Otarocyon has a living canine analog, fennec fox(Vulpes (Fennecus) zerda" – siehe Fußnote unten) und ist damit älter als die beidenerstgenannten "primitiven" Formen. In derselben geologischen Formation (Orellan)treten übrigens auch die zur Unterfamile Hesperocyoninae gehörenden GattungenMesocyon und Osbornodon 558 sprunghaft auf und darauf im Whitnean gleichzeitigParaenhydrocyon, Cynodesmus und Ectopocynus (alles Hesperocyoninae). 559Das geologisch ganz nah beieinander liegende bzw. für die beiden letzterenUnterfamilien sogar gleichzeitige Auftreten der ersten Vertreter der dreiGroßgruppen der Familie der Canidae, (1) Hesperocyoninae mit Hesperocyon(Chadronian), (2) Borophaginae mit Otarocyon (Orellan) 560 und (3) Caninae mitLeptocyon (Orellan) war weder gemäß der Idee der kontinuierlichen Evolution(Gradualismus, Neodarwinismus, Synthetische Evolutionstheorie), noch von PunkEek (Punctuated Equilibrium) 561 oder sonstigen mir bekannten Evolutionstheorieerwartet worden, stimmt aber sehr wohl mit der Designtheorie überein (sieheTestkriterien oben).557 Wang et al. (1999, pp. 41/42): The abrupt appearance of the morphologically highly derived Otarocyon in the Orellan without any apparentpredecessor presents a problem for phylogenetic interpretation. Although Otarocyon shares with Archaeocyon derived characters of the canine–borophagine clade (reduced M1 parastyle, anteriorly extended M1 lingual cingulum, more basined talonid of m1, and high m2 entoconid), theways that these morphologies are achieved, however, seem to suggest independent development of these characters. For example, the highlyconate m1 entoconid is interrupted anteriorly by a deep notch separating the entoconid from the metaconid, and is in sharp contrast to a ridgelikeentoconid, which reaches anteriorly to the base of the metaconid and fully encloses a talonid basin in all primitive hesperocyonines, canines, andborophagines. This peculiarity of the bicuspid talonid is not seen elsewhere in the borophagines. In absence of more transitional forms,however, we must assume for the purpose of parsimony that these derived characters in Otarocyon are synapomorphies shared with otherborophagines, rather than being homoplasies. For all its unique morphology, Otarocyon has a living canine analog, fennec fox (Vulpes(Fennecus) zerda), from desert regions of northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In addition to being among the smallest foxes, thefennecs share with Otarocyon a striking list of derived similarities: expanded braincase, short nasal process of frontal, parasagittal temporalcrests, enlarged bulla and narrowed interbullar space, loss of low septum inside bulla, paroccipital process fully cupping bulla, simplifiedpremolars, and enlarged m2 metaconid. The list is long enough to raise the intriguing possibility of the origin of ancestral fennecs fromOtarocyon. The implicit long hiatus in the fossil record (approximately 25 m.y.) notwithstanding, such a proposition, however, would have toovercome a longer list of derived characters in fennecs that indicates their position within the Vulpini (Tedford et al., 1995: characters 4–18),although some of these characters are not unique to vulpines or cannot be observed in available materials of Otarocyon. For example, Otarocyondoes not possess such canine characters as slender horizontal ramus, narrow premolars, elongated P4 and m1, m2 anterolabial cingulum, or lossof entepicondylar foramen of humerus. Furthermore, fennecs differs from Otarocyon in additional details that require explanation if they arepostulated as sister-groups: presence of a frontal depression (seen in most vulpines), lack of a suprameatal fossa, presence of a short bony externalauditory meatus, and an extension of the ectotympanic ring to form the dorsal passage of auditory meatus. It is therefore more parsimonious toview the similarities between V. zerda and Otarocyon as independently derived. Such conclusion is also consistent with studies ofchromosomes, allozymes, and mitochondrial DNA of living canids (Wayne et al., 1987a, 1987b; Wayne and O'Brien, 1987; Wayne et al., MS),which place the fennec within the clade of living foxes but not in a more basal position as would be predicted by an Otarocyon– Fennecus sisterrelationship. This remarkable convergence in two subfamilies of Canidae provides a valuable living analog (Vulpes zerda) of a fossil group(Otarocyon) for inference of its soft anatomy and ecology. For example, we can reasonably infer that Otarocyon must have had a very largeexternal ear, as have the fennecs, and that the auditory apparatus was sensitive to low-frequency hearing (Lay, 1972; Webster and Webster,1980).”558 Wenn auch etwas später in dieser Formation.559 Siehe dazu die ausführliche Darstellung von Wang und Tedford 2008/2010, pp. 178/179 (und redrawn unten).560 Im Gegensatz zur deutlichen und unmissverständlichen Darstellung von Wang und Tedford (2008/2010, p. 178) sind im "family tree" vonProthero 2007, p. 292 ("Based on information supplied by Xiaoming Wang") Otarocyon, Cynarctoides, Phlaocyon und Cormocyon alle gleichalt. Die drei Letzteren kommen jedoch gemäß Wang und Tedford 5 Millionen Jahre später.561 Siehe dazu bespielhaft die oben ausführlich ziertierten Erwartungen gemäß dem Punk-Eek-Ansatz zur Evolution und paläontologischenÜberlieferung der Langhalsgiraffen.