  The paleontological record fails to show the precise ancestry of Mustela. The genus has been found in deposits of Pleistocene age, but, so far as I can ascertain, not in deposits of earlier times. The Pleistocene remains are not specifically distinct from Recent (living) species, and in only a few instances (see M. f. latirostra and M. e. angustidens) are they even subspecifically distinct from the Recent weasel living in the same area today. It is true that fossil remains from deposits of several stages of the Tertiary beds have in the past been identified in the literature as Mustela, but most of these identifications were made many years ago when the generic name Mustela was used in a far broader and more inclusive sense than it is today and much of the fossil material was so fragmentary that the generic identity could not be ascertained, at least at that time. Because the generic identity could not be ascertained, the fossil material was tentatively assigned to the genus Mustela, the "typical" genus of the family Mustelidae instead of to some other more specialized or less well-known genus of the family. To satisfy my curiosity about these species of "Mustela" of a geological age earlier than the Pleistocene I have personally studied nearly all of the original specimens from North America and have found each to be of some genus other than Mustela. Also, such study as I have been able to make of the Old World fossils themselves that have been referred to the genus Mustela up to 1938, and my study of the illustrations and descriptions of the others from there lead to the same conclusion; that is to say, none that is true Mustela is known up to now from deposits older than the Pleistocene. When, in 1930 (pp. 146-147), I wrote about the taxonomic position of three American genera of fossils (known only from lower jaws), each of which had been previously referred to the genus Mustela, I said that they pertained "to that section of the weasel family (Mustelidae) which comprises the polecats, true weasels, ferrets, minks and martens. The fossil specimens ... are smaller than any other later Tertiary members of the group yet described, and are more primitive than any of the above mentioned Recent relatives. Of the three extinct genera ... Miomustela [Lower Pliocene or Upper Miocene of the Lower Madison Valley, Montana] is the most primitive and Martinogale [Pliocene, 18 mi. SE Goodland, Sherman County, Kansas] is the most advanced. This view rests largely on the character of M=1 which in Miomustela has a deeply basined, short, narrow talonid with a thick, high metaconid situated partly posterior to the protoconid. In Martinogale the talonid is incipiently trenchant, long, broad, and it has a lesser developed metaconid which is situated more anterior [ly]. Pliogale [Lower Pliocene, Humboldt County, Nevada] is intermediate in this respect. "These three forms are of special interest as possible ancestors of the subgenus Mustela, true weasels. No members of this subgenus, nor related forms which can with any degree of certainty be regarded as directly ancestral to them, have yet been described from Miocene or Pliocene deposits. Palaeogale of the Old World and Bunaelurus of North America, each of Oligocene age, have been placed by Schlosser (1888, p. 116) and Matthew (1902, p. 137) as members of the primitive group of mustelids ancestral to Mustela. This course seems logical; and with no truly intermediate links between these forms of the Oligocene on the one hand, and Mustela which first appears in the Pleistocene, on the other, more definite statements about ancestral positions of the small Oligocene forms can hardly be made. The deciding considerations for authors who placed Palaeogale and Bunaelurus as ancestral to Mustela were the absence of a metaconid on M1 and the trenchant talonid of that tooth. These characters are found also in Mustela. On the other hand certain structures in the basicranial region of Palaeogale and more especially of Bunaelurus indicate that these genera possibly are not close to the ancestral form of Mustela ... Martinogale may stand near the ancestral form of Mustela and ... Pliogale may be ancestral to Martinogale. Pliogale, in turn, may have had an ancestor similar to Miomustela. If this should prove to be the case, Palaeogale and Bunaelurus might be regarded as an independent branch which displays merely a parallelism to Mustela in the loss of the metaconid on M1 and the development of a trenchant talonid on that tooth. The writer would make it clear that he does not hold such to be the case. The ancestral relation of Martinogale to Mustela is presented merely to show the possibility, and not the special probability, of such an origin for Mustela. Knowledge of the tympanic bullae and other structures of the basicranial region would go far toward answering the question and until these structures are known [in mustelids of the Later Tertiary,] some uncertainty will remain." At the present writing I can add to the above statement only a few facts. The discovery of better material of Bunaelurus than was available to previous workers led Simpson (1946), correctly I think, to synonymize Bunaelurus with Palaeogale. Simpson figures the cranial foramina in Palaeogale. The differences, between Palaeogale and Mustela, in cranial foramina, possibly are only the result of the elongation of the tympanic bullae. The bullae of the subgenus Mustela are seen to be much elongated posteriorly if comparison is made with the bullae of earlier mustelids. Consequently, it might be concluded that there is nothing in the arrangement of the cranial foramina which would preclude the derivation of Mustela from Palaeogale. However, the anterior situation of the carotid foramen—well forward along the medial margin of the tympanic bulla—is a character typical of other mustelids and the posterior location of this foramen in Palaeogale might indicate that it was not ancestral to Mustela. |
|
