TROPIDOPHIIDAE Cope 1894
Makaleler > Tam Makale · 2021
Yazarlar: Georgalis, Georgios L., Čerňanský, Andrej, Serdar MAYDA
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), Uluslararası, 2021
Özet
Family “ TROPIDOPHIIDAE ” Cope, 1894 COMMENT ON THE STATUS OF “ TROPIDOPHIIDAE ” Tropidophiids, commonly known as “dwarf boas”, have extant representatives distributed solely in the Neotropics (Wallach et al. 2014). Nevertheless, they have a fossil record in the Old World as well, as a number of extinct taxa has been established from the Paleogene and Neogene of Europe (e.g. Rage 1973, 1974, 1988a; Szyndlar & Böhme 1996; Szyndlar & Rage 2003; Szyndlar et al. 2008; Rage & Augé 2010), while their remains have been also described from the Paleogene of northern Africa (Augé & Rage 2006; McCartney & Seiffert 2016). Extant tropidophiids have been traditionally lumped into “booids” (e.g. Rage 1984; seeGeorgalis & Scheyer 2019 for the concept of the informal grouping “Booidea”) and divided into two “subfamilies”, i.e., tropidophiines and ungaliophiines (Szyndlar & Rage 2003). However, in the past few decades they were suggested to represent a paraphyletic assemblage, on the basis of external and musculatoral morphology (Zaher 1994). This was later further supported by phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data, which recovered tropidophiids (in their traditional sense) as paraphyletic, with tropidophiines (comprising the genera Tropidophis Bibron in Ramón de la Sagra 1838 -1843, and Trachyboa Peters, 1860) nested instead more close to anilioids, while ungaliophiines (comprising the genera Ungaliophis Müller, 1880, and Exiliboa Bogert, 1968) nested within Booidea (Wilcox et al. 2002; Lawson et al. 2004; Vidal et al. 2007; Wiens et al. 2012; Reynolds et al. 2014; Streicher & Wiens 2016; Burbrink et al. 2020). Such distinction is further corroborated by cranial (Bogert 1968a) and vertebral anatomy (Bogert 1968a, 1968b; Szyndlar & Rage 2003; Smith 2013). Accordingly, such view has met a wide consensus among herpetologists who usually treat these groups as distinct families, tropidophiids and ungaliophiids (e.g. Wallach et al. 2014). Ungaliophiines have been subsequently placed as a subfamily of Charinaidae (i.e., Ungaliophiinae) (Pyron et al. 2014); Burbrink et al. (2020) elevated both charinaids and ungaliophiids to the family level, but still recovered them as sister groups in their phylogenetic analysis. All these being said, Tropidophiidae in its modern sense is nested close to anilioids and not booids. On the other hand, in palaeontological literature, fossil Tropidophiidae are still mostly considered as pertaining to “booids” (e.g. Szyndlar & Rage 2003; Szyndlar et al. 2008), i.e., the Constrictores sensu Georgalis & Smith (2020). As such, we have to note that with their current family denomination they are automatically considered as close to anilioids and not to Constrictores, even though the latter case may be more likely. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we use the term “ Tropidophiidae ” in quotation marks. For a detailed discussion on fossil “tropidophiids”, see Smith & Georgalis (in press). Among the limited vertebral material from Kargi 2, we here tentatively recognize two distinct “tropidophiid” forms (see below). Although both represented by non overlapping material (i.e., vertebrae not pertaining to the same portion of the column), we tend to treat them as different taxa on the basis of comparison with coeval, more complete material from western and central Europe. Nevertheless, such distinction should be considered as provisional, in anticipation of additional vertebral material from Anatolia that may eventually elucidate this taxonomic issue. “ Tropidophiidae ” indet. (Fig. 13) MATERIAL. — Turkey. Kargi 2: A mid-caudal vertebra (EUNMH PV 14072). DESCRIPTION The vertebra EUNMH PV 14072 is rather incomplete, missing large part of both prezygapophyses, the left postzygapophysis, and the dorsalmost portion of the neural spine (Fig. 13). It is tiny, with a centrum length of 2.0 mm and a neural arch width of 1.6 mm. The neural spine is developed only at the posterior half of the neural arch. The neural arch is vaulted. The haemapophyses develop around the mid-portion of the centrum, they are almost parallel to each other in ventral view and extend rather ventrally in posterior view. The cotyle and condyle are small. The pleurapophyses are broad and extend ventrolaterally. The postzygapophyseal articular facets are massive. COMMENTS This vertebra could pertain to one of the two above described “tropidophiids”. Note that Platyspondylia was so far considered to have haemapophyses throughout the caudal region (Rage 1974; Szyndlar & Rage 2003), however, it is now known that haemapophyses are absent in the anterior caudal vertebrae but present in mid- and posterior caudal ones of this taxon (Vianey-Liaud et al. 2014).