Land bridges to Madagascar

 

Sweepstakes distribution as envisaged by G. G.Simpson

One of the first posts on this blog (here) was about sweepstakes distribution as proposed by George Gaylord Simpson. Simply put it envisaged that animals endemic to Madagascar, such as lemurs and tenrecs, as well as now extinct hippopotami, crossed the Mozambique Channel on rafts of vegetation. 

This has been widely accepted and bolstered by evidence that ocean currents in the Cenozoic might have been more favourable to rafting than they would be today (here).

Now a cross-disciplinary group has taken a fresh look at the question and reached quite a different conclusion (here). They begin by questioning whether small primates or tenrecs could survive on the crossing which they estimate could take several months. Further they dismiss the idea that a hippo could swim to Madagascar; their arguments on this point are convincing. Could a raft be strong enough to support a hippo during the crossing (as pictured in the cartoon above)?

Verreaux's Sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi)

They suggest that there has been too much focus on the width of the Mozambique Channel and not enough on its depth. They present a mass of data, bewildering to me, but supporting the possibility of land bridges from Africa to Madagascar. The first of these at the Cretaceous-Palaeocene boundary might have been used by the ancestors of lemurs and tenrecs (their African cousins are lorises and otter shrews).

A land bridge at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary could have been used by the ancestors of Malagasy rodents and Malagasy carnivores such as the fossa. Finally there was an incomplete land bridge at the Miocene-Pliocene boundary that might be a more plausible route for a hippopotamus to cross.

The obvious question is why the Malagasy fauna is so depauperate. Why are there no monkeys, large cats or ungulates? The authors suggest they may have made it to Madagascar but gone extinct. Fortunately for this argument, the fossil record on Madagascar is very poor.

And what about that other discussion of land bridges versus rafting - how did hystricognath rodents and the ancestors of Neotropical primates reach South America (see previous post)?

Evolution of Neotropical primates

Geoffroy's spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi)
Wikimedia Commons

Derek Wildman's Group at Wayne State University have re-examined the evolution of Neotropical primates (here). Using genomic data from 36 species they derive a tree with few surprises but better support than in other recent analyses.

What I found interesting is their attempt to place platyrrhine evolution in a biogeographical context. They suggest that the most recent common ancestor of extant species lived in what today is the Amazon rain forest, Guiana Shield and Northern Andes. Then, however, this was largely an area of lowlands and mountains. In support of their interpretation, known fossil sites are within this region. They further suggest that diversification of platyrrhines occurred with the establishment and development of the Amazon rain forest. 


Placenta of the white fronted capuchin (Cebus albifrons)
From Carter and Mess (here)

The founder of the Neotropical primates arrived in South America during the Oligocene when the continent was completely isolated from other land masses. Personally I favour the view (espoused here) that they came by a transatlantic route. However, Jameson Kiesling et al. suggest they may have come directly from Asia. In support they cite the occurrence of all the early fossils on the west side of the continent and recent evidence that platyrrhines may have emerged in Asia rather than Africa. In either case the means of dispersal was most likely by rafting (see previous post on sweepstakes distribution).




Transgenic monkeys

Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Wikipedia Commons

A news article in Nature (here) tells how new gene-editing techniques offer the opportunity to create transgenic primates. The emphasis is on neuroscience and models of brain disease. But if transgenic lines are developed there should be placentas available for study.

Although work on rhesus macaques is mentioned, more progress has been made using marmosets. One advantage might be that marmosets usually carry twins so a colony could be built up quicker. These Neotropical primates have placentas that differ in several ways from human placenta.

Haematopoietic foci in the placenta of a marmoset

(Callithrix jacchus) from Carter and Mess (here)

© Museum für Naturkunde Berlin

As an example, the placenta is an important site of haematopoiesis. The conventional wisdom is that there is little or no trophoblast invasion, but this is one aspect that calls for reexamination. If marmosets begin to emerge as important disease models there will be a need to look more closely at their placentation.