Search results

Synthesis of species distributions and hotspots of endangerment is critical for setting conservation priorities to address the acute worldwide biodiversity crisis (Feeley and Silman 2011). Such a synthesis requires enormous efforts to access and unite widely dispersed biodiversity data and to establish open data archiving as a standard scientific practice. The essential first steps in this endeavor are locating primary biodiversity data—where, when, how, and by whom species have been observed or collected—and mak- ing this basic data available to the scientific community. Here, we report on a coordinated initiative of freshwater journals to stimulate a culture of publishing primary biodiversity data. Although freshwaters are tiny in their extent, they harbor a very large fraction of the global species richness, and they have experienced alarming rates of biodiversity decline (Dudgeon et al. 2006). However, freshwater biodiversity is generally neglected or grossly underrepresented in data- mobilization efforts. The importance of broad biodiversity compilations, however, has been increasingly recognized, especially in light of the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Group on Earth Observations’ Biodiversity Observation Network, and standards and tools have already been put in place to manage large sets of primary biodiversity data. In particular, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; www.gbif.org) collates and centralizes biodiversity information through its participant nodes, which include large topical initiatives such as the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (Costello and Vanden Berghe 2006) and the distributed database network for vertebrates, VertNet (Constable et al. 2010). BioFresh (www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu), a European Union–funded project, serves the same purpose for the freshwater realm. Recent calls for data archiving in ecology (Whitlock 2011), together with the increasingly common requirement by funding agencies to deposit research data, will be instrumental in making primary biodiversity data available. There is no doubt, however, that scientific journals can and should also play a key role in promoting data-sharing policies (Huang and Qiao 2011). Consequently, we developed the following statement in collaboration with freshwater journal editors to strongly encourage the submission of species-distribution data: “Authors are encouraged to place all species distribution records in a publicly accessible database such as the national Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) nodes (www.gbif.org) or data centers endorsed by GBIF, including BioFresh (www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu).” This statement is posted on http:// data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/submit data.html along with further instructions and will be widely published in the journals’ instructions for authors and on their Web sites. The editors and publishers of the following journals have approved the statement: Aquatic Botany, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Aquatic Ecology, Aquatic Sciences, Ecology of Freshwater Fish, Freshwater Biology, Freshwater Reviews, Fundamental and Applied Limnology, Hydrobiologia, Inland Waters, the International Review of Hydrobiology, Freshwater Science (formerly, the Journal of the North American Benthological Society), the Journal of Fish Biology, the Journal of Limnology, the Journal of Plankton Research, Limnetica, Limnologica, Marine and Freshwater Research, and River Systems. Discussions are in prog- ress with an additional nine major journals in the field. What is the benefit to authors in following the recommendations for publishing primary biodiversity data? Certainly, promoting large-scale bio- diversity syntheses is an important idealistic motivation. However, as was outlined by Costello (2009), embrac- ing data-publishing practices also leads to increased recognition of scientists’ work. Papers connected to publicly available data are cited significantly more often, because the data become available for inclusion in broad-scale analyses (Piwowar et al. 2007), which are increasingly gaining importance. Importantly, the publication of primary biodiversity data is technically straightforward and quick, which minimizes the burden on authors. This is achieved by restricting submissions to a minimal standard set of fields, similar to the requirements for sequence submission to GenBank, a hugely successful database with great potential for supporting biodiversity science as well. Endorsement of the proposed data-publishing policy by most major freshwater journals will doubtlessly spur submission of primary biodiversity data, because it would raise awareness and could establish a culture of data publication. It should also encourage a wider range of journals in other areas of ecology and related fields to join the initiative. This would be of great benefit to scientific progress and to biodiversity conservation alike.

In 1880, the early Eocene fluvial deposits of the Erquelinnes sand quarry in the southern part of the Mons basin in Belgium yielded their first mammal fossil, a well preserved jaw of a primitive perissodactyl. By 1927, about 40 mammal specimens had been recovered from Erquelinnes and were attributed to Adapisorex, ‘Protomomys’, Paramys, Plesiadapis, Arctocyonides, Hyracotherium, Coryphodon and ‘Oxyaena or Miacidae’. By that time however, the Erquelinnes fauna had already been eclipsed by the contemporaneous Dormaal fauna from northeastern Belgium, which yielded thousands of specimens rather than only a few dozen. Since then, attention for the Erquelinnes fauna has therefore been limited to the passing mentions of referred specimens in the formal descriptions of the new plesiadapiform Platychoerops georgei and of the miacid Gracilocyon solei. Here we present an updated faunal list of the complete Erquelinnes mammal fauna. We show that also hyaenodontids, mesonychids, hyopsodontids, and dichobunid artiodactyls are present in the Erquelinnes fauna, and some of the earlier identifications are corrected or detailed further. This update of the Erquelinnes mammal fauna almost doubles its diversity, and strengthens the correlation with the earliest Eocene (MP7) Dormaal reference fauna. Results from δ13Corg analysis of the mammal-bearing level at Erquelinnes and the strata immediately below it, seem to independently support the faunal correlation. Faunal differences between Erquelinnes and Dormaal are most likely the result of subtle differences in depositional environments and thus in taphonomic bias. Details of the stratigraphic origin of the Erquelinnes perissodactyl specimens however show that these are derived from two distinct stratigraphic levels, which potentially have significantly different age correlations.

In 1880, the fluvial “Upper Landenian” deposits (Tienen Formation) of the Erquelinnes sand quarry in the southern part of the Mons basin near the Belgian-French border yielded their first mammal fossil, a well preserved jaw of a primitive perissodactyl. By 1927, about 40 mammal specimens had been found at Erquelinnes and had been attributed to Adapisorex, ‘Protomomys’, Paramys, Plesiadapis, Arctocyonides, Hyracotherium, Coryphodon and ‘Oxyaena or Miacidae’. By that time however, the Erquelinnes fauna had already been eclipsed by the contemporaneous Dormaal fauna from northeastern Belgium, which yielded thousands of specimens and has since become the international MP7 reference level for the earliest Eocene of Europe. Meanwhile, attention for the Erquelinnes fauna has been limited to passing mentions of referred specimens in the formal descriptions of the new plesiadapiform Platychoerops georgei and of the miacid carnivoran Gracilocyon solei. Here we present an updated faunal list for the complete Erquelinnes mammal fauna. We show that also hyaenodontids, mesonychids, hyopsodontids, and dichobunid artiodactyls are present, and some of the earlier identifications are corrected or detailed further. This update of the Erquelinnes mammal fauna almost doubles its diversity, and strengthens the correlation with the Dormaal MP7 reference fauna. The results of the δ13Corg analysis of the strata underlying and coeval with the fluvial unit containing the Erquelinnes mammal fauna seem to independently support the faunal correlation and earliest Eocene age Sedimentological observations and δ13Corg analysis recently obtained in fluvial and lignitic sediments from the nearby Avesnois area in northern France (Quesnel et al, this meeting) moreover allow the correlation of the “Upper Landenian” fluvial deposits from the Belgian Erquelinnes locality with those of the “Sparnacian” in France. Remaining faunal differences between Erquelinnes and Dormaal are most likely the result of subtle differences in depositional environments and thus in taphonomic bias except, possibly, for the perissodactyl jaw collected in 1880. This specimen was not collected from the basal gravel bed of the Erquelinnes Sand Member like all other specimens, but from the overlying, cross-stratified sands. Iits morphology is unlike that of the perissodactyl found in the basal gravel bed at Erquelinnes or of any other Dormaal aged perissodactyl. Instead, it matches Cymbalophus cuniculus from slightly younger deposits in the London Basin. The perissodactyl jaw from Erquelinnes therefore either indicates an earlier first appearance for Cymbalophus, an unexpectedly long phase of deposition for the Erquelinnes Sand Mbr, or a combination of both.

Arctostylopids are enigmatic mammals known from the Paleocene and early Eocene of Asia and North America. Based on molar similarities, they have most often been grouped with the extinct Notoungulata from South and Central America, but tarsal evidence links them to Asian basal gliriforms. Although Palaeostylops is the best known arctostylopid genus, some points of its content and species level taxonomy are uncertain. Here we report 255 upper and lower jaw fragments of Palaeostylops, five calcanea, three astragali, as well as the first known arctostylopid distal tibia. This new material was collected from the late Paleocene of the Flaming Cliffs area in Mongolia, in a single lens almost exclusively containing arctostylopid remains. Our study of the morphology and size of the new Palaeostylops dental material confirms the validity of two species, P. iturus and P. macrodon, and illustrates their morphological and biometrical variability and diagnostic differences. The distal tibia of Palaeostylops is relatively unspecialised and resembles the Asian gliriforms Pseudictops and Rhombomylus. We also review the relevance of the historically important genus Palaeostylops in view of other, more recently described but less abundant arctostylopid genera. Palaeostylops remains the reference taxon for the arctostylopid anterior dentition and postcranial morphology. For both anatomical regions, arctostylopids differ significantly from notoungulates, and present a mosaic of characters also seen in basal gliriforms. The notoungulate-like molars of Palaeostylops are highly specialized for arctostylopids and the arctostylopid molar morphotype is therefore better illustrated by the early middle Paleocene Asiostylops. This morphotype does not present any similarities to notoungulates, but shares a number of derived characters with basal gliriforms. Among gliriforms, the primitive arctostylopid morphotype is most similar to Astigale from the early Paleocene of South China, and we suggest that Arctostylopidae may therefore be more closely related to Astigalidae than to any other group.

We describe a stem group representative of Diomedeidae from the early Oligocene (Rupelian) of Belgium. The fossil remains, wing, and pectoral girdle bones of two individuals are described as Tydea septentrionalis, gen. et sp. nov., and constitute the earliest well-established record of the taxon and the first Paleogene record from the North Sea Basin. The new species was about the size of the extant Black-browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) and establishes that albatrosses had already reached a large size 30 mya. The wing bones of T. septentrionalis are distinguished by several plesiomorphic features from those of species in crown group Diomedeidae, which may indicate differences in aerodynamic performance between the fossil species and extant albatrosses. We detail that a previously described early Miocene species, “Plotornis” arvernensis, should be expunged from the fossil record of albatrosses. However, the new fossils provide further evidence that the extant, mainly Southern Hemispheric, distribution of albatrosses is relictual compared with the past distribution of the total group (stem group + crown group). With unambiguous records from the early Oligocene, early Miocene, and Pliocene, albatrosses are now known to have had a long evolutionary history in the European part of the North Atlantic, but the reasons for their extinction remain poorly understood