Jump to content

New Large Mammal Species Discovered From Florida's Pleistocene


MarkGelbart

Recommended Posts

I went to the Florida Museum website. I was looking for their database to determine if magpies and northern ravens occurred in Florida during the Pleistocene as part of research I'm doing for my next blog entry. I think they have but I couldn't remember my source. Anyway, I couldn't find the database but I learned something pretty exciting. (At least for me--I don't believe anyone else is as fascinated with Pleistocene ecology as I am.)

Someone searching the Peace River in Florida for fossils discovered the lower jawbone of a collared peccary. So in addition to the long-nosed peccary and the flat-headed peccary, there was a third kind of peccary living in southeastern North America.

There wasn't enough material to determine whether it's from the still extant collared peccary now living in the American southwest or from some extinct species.

Collared peccaries are known as skunk pigs because of a gland they have that must be removed when the animal is butchered or the meat will taste bad. If prepared correctly, it's supposed to taste like pork.

********************************************************************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds cool too me. Although I don't think the Pleistocene is as awesome as I once thought... too many peccaries... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition, Arctodus simus, the Giant Short-Face Bear was just described from Florida for the first time recently.

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The collared peccary, Tayassu sp., was first reported from Florida (Melbourne) in 1950.

According to the University of Florida of Museum website, they're reporting three new specimens (one also from the Suwannee River) as first finds of the collared peccary from the state.

I think academic papers circa 1950 referred to all peccaries, including the long-nosed and flat-headed, as being in the Tayassu genus. It's probably based on outdated nomenclature. Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that's the case with the one reported from Melbourne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the University of Florida of Museum website, they're reporting three new specimens (one also from the Suwannee River) as first finds of the collared peccary from the state.

I think academic papers circa 1950 referred to all peccaries, including the long-nosed and flat-headed, as being in the Tayassu genus. It's probably based on outdated nomenclature. Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that's the case with the one reported from Melbourne.

Actually, I was quoting from Hulbert's note 59 in the checklist of species in the 2001 THE FOSSIL VERTEBRATES OF FLORIDA. That note reads:

Most early references of Florida fossil material to the living genus Tayassu are clearly in error and instead apply to Mylohyus. Tayassu is retained in this list based on the record from Melbourne [Gazin, C.L. 1950. "Annotated list of fossil mammals associated with human remains at Melbourne, Fla."...], which has not been specifically refuted in the literature. However, it is unlikely that this genus really occurred in Florida.

I haven't seen the FSM website reference to Tayassu - did you post a link? As you quote the FSM site, the Melbourne report must have been refuted - was that 1950 material referenced?

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the link.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/vertpaleo/

The reference is:

"Collared Peccary (Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Tayassuidae, Pecari) from the late Pleistocene of Florida pp. 543-555 in L.B. Albright III Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology and Biostratigraphy in honor of Michael Woodburne. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65

I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing the specimen from Melbourne in 1950 was lost and without examining it, Dr. Hulbert couldn't confirm that it wasn't a collared peccary. That's probably why he didn't refute it in his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the link.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/vertpaleo/

The reference is:

"Collared Peccary (Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Tayassuidae, Pecari) from the late Pleistocene of Florida pp. 543-555 in L.B. Albright III Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology and Biostratigraphy in honor of Michael Woodburne. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65

I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing the specimen from Melbourne in 1950 was lost and without examining it, Dr. Hulbert couldn't confirm that it wasn't a collared peccary. That's probably why he didn't refute it in his book.

Thanks for the link, Mark! So, it's not even Tayassu any more; the genus is now Pecari.

No reference to the Melbourne peccary material in this Museum gloss, but I'm certain that it was addressed in the Northern Arizona Bulletin.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Melbourne fossils were lost. There were, and still are, many questions unresolved by the 2001 book that Hulbert edited. Research is done by specialists. Editors compile information from specialists. I've already reported here Hulbert's understanding of the situation when he compiled the check-list. There is no basis to assume anything other than the facts as presented.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, javelina in AZ too. They do NOT taste like pork to me. I won't eat another. LOL

~Mike

All your fossils are belong to us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, Mark! So, it's not even Tayassu any more; the genus is now Pecari.

No reference to the Melbourne peccary material in this Museum gloss, but I'm certain that it was addressed in the Northern Arizona Bulletin.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Melbourne fossils were lost. There were, and still are, many questions unresolved by the 2001 book that Hulbert edited. Research is done by specialists. Editors compile information from specialists. I've already reported here Hulbert's understanding of the situation when he compiled the check-list. There is no basis to assume anything other than the facts as presented.

I screwed up the reference, leaving out names of the authors of that paper--Hulbert, R.C., G.S. Morgan, A. Kerns 2009

Sundancer,

Your javelina probably wasn't prepared correctly. According to the Bull Cook and Authentic Historical Recipes by George and Berthe Herter, javelina makes rare, excellent eating superior to wild boar.

Here are the steps that need to be taken to make sure it tastes good.

1. Don't shoot it through the gut because the manure juices will ruin the meat.

2. Remove the musk gland on the back. If it's been hit by the bullet, the meat is ruined.

3. Skin the animal immediately. If you leave the skin on the meat, the meat is ruined.

I also saw Andrew Zimmern shoot and eat one on his Travel Channel series--Bizarre Foods. He also proclaimed it excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite javelina recipe:

Into the body cavity of a cleaned and prepared javelina, stuff it with 2 onions, 4 apples, 6 cloves of garlic, and a couple of celery sticks. Sew the cavity closed.

Cover the outside of the beast with salt, and pepper, after rubbing with fresh garlic.

Place the javelina on a split hickory board, on its back.

Bake over a hardwood fire for about 6 hours, until the thigh bone moves freely and the juices run clear.

Remove the javelina from the board and throw in the trashcan, then eat the board.

Goes best with a little BBQ sauce and alot of Stag.

This recipe can also be modified to include the common carp, and snow geese- great for increasing the fiber in your diet.

Master of Culinary Delights

Brent Ashcraft

ashcraft, brent allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contacted Dr. Hulbert and had a chance to read the paper.

He doesn't think the 1950 specimen from Melbourne is from a collared peccary, but he didn't mention it in his paper.

There is a specimen discovered in 1928 that from the description was probably from a collared peccary, but that specimen's been lost, so without examining it he doesn't know for sure. He thinks there may be more in museum collections that have been incorrectly labeled as coming from Mylohyus or Platygonus.

BTW,

Of the three known specimens, one was purchased from a fossil dealer. Maybe from someone who lurks here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...