Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:29:16.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Feeding Habits of the Shovel-Tusked Gomphotheres: Evidence From Tusk Wear Patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

W. David Lambert
W. David Lambert*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The shovel-tusked gomphotheres are normally portrayed scooping up water plants with their shovellike mandibular tusks. This portrayal is based on speculation about the possible functions of the lower tusks and misinterpretation of mandibular-tusk wear patterns that goes back to the 1920s and 1930s. In addition, most literature concerning shovel-tusker feeding behavior ignores the possibility that the upper tusks may have had a role in feeding, as they do in modern African elephants. Because wear patterns on tusks provide direct evidence as to how tusks were used during feeding, I examined and interpreted patterns on the lower and upper tusks of shovel-tusked gomphotheres on the basis of theoretical models of tusk wear to determine how the tusks were used in feeding.

This examination led to the following conclusions. (1) The genus Amebelodon was characterized by feeding opportunism, gathering food with both its lower and upper tusks in a variety of ways. (2) There is evidence for similar flexibility within the genus Serbelodon. (3) Wear patterns on mandibular tusks of Platybelodon grangeri and Torynobelodon barnumbrowni indicate that these taxa did not practice mandibular shoveling but used these tusks to cut tough vegetation in a specialized fashion. (4) The flaplike trunks (probosces) generally attributed to shovel-tusked gomphotheres in restorations are shown almost certainly to be erroneous; morphological and functional evidence suggests that these animals had trunks similar to those of modern elephants. (5) Strong tusk sexual dimorphism is unknown in the shovel-tusked gomphotheres except for Platybelodon and should not be found in any taxa that relied on their tusks for procuring food. New restorations of both Amebelodon and Platybelodon are provided that are more consistent with the actual evidence bearing on their feeding behavior.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , March 1992 , pp. 132 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Barbour, E. H. 1927. Preliminary notice of a new proboscidean Amebelodon fricki, gen. et sp. nov. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum 1: 131–134.Google Scholar
Barbour, E. H. 1929a. The mandibular tusks of Amebelodon fricki. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum 1: 135–138.Google Scholar
Barbour, E. H. 1929b. Torynobelodon loomisi, gen. et sp. nov. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum 1: 147–153.Google Scholar
Barbour, E. H. 1931. A new amebelodont, Torynobelodon barnumbrowni sp. nov., a preliminary report. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum 1: 191–197.Google Scholar
Barbour, E. H. 1932. The mandible of Platybelodon barnumbrowni. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum 1: 252–258.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. 1984. Elephants. Pp. 452–461In Macdonald, D., ed. The encyclopedia of mammals. Facts on File, New York.Google Scholar
Borissiak, A. A. 1929. On a new direction in the adaptive radiation of mastodonts. Paleobiologica 2: 19–33.Google Scholar
Cook, H. J. 1922. Two new bunomastodonts from Colorado. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of Natural History 4: 2–15.Google Scholar
Domning, D. 1989. Fossil Sirenia of the west Atlantic and Caribbean region. Part II. Dioplotherium manigaulti. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 9: 415–428.Google Scholar
Douglas-Hamilton, I., and Douglas-Hamilton, O.. 1975. Among the elephants. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. 1981. The mammal radiations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Fenton, C. L., and Fenton, M. A.. 1958. The fossil book. Doubleday, Garden City, N.J.Google Scholar
Frick, C. 1933. New remains of trilophodont-tetrabelodont mastodons. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 59: 505–552.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. D. 1990. Rediagnosis of the genus Amebelodon (Mammalia, Proboscidea, Gomphotheriidae), with a new sub-genus and species, Amebelodon (Konobelodon) britti. Journal of Paleontology 64: 1032–1040.Google Scholar
Mebrate, A. 1987. The long-jawed gomphotheres. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Nowak, R. M., and Paradiso, J. L.. 1983. Walker's mammals of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F. 1936. Proboscidea, vol. 1. American Museum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F., and Granger, W.. 1932. Platybelodon grangeri, three growth stages, and a new serridentine from Mongolia. American Museum Novitates 537: 1–13.Google Scholar
Savage, R.J.G., and Long, M. R.. 1986. Mammal evolution. Facts on File, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1980. Splendid isolation. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Tedford, R. H., Skinner, M. F., Fields, R. W., Rensberger, J. M., Whistler, D. P., Galusha, T., Taylor, B. E., MacDonald, J. R., and Webb, S. D.. 1987. Faunal succession and biochronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian interval (late Oligocene through earliest Pliocene epochs) in North America. Pp. 153–210In Woodburne, M. O., ed. Cenozoic mammals of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Tobien, H. 1972. Status of the genus Serridentinus Osborn 1923 (Proboscidea: Mammalia) and related forms. Mainzer Geowis-senschaftliche Mitteilungen 1: 143–191.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D., MacFadden, B. J., and Baskin, J. A.. 1981. Geology and paleontology of the Love Bone Bed from the late Miocene of Florida. American Journal of Science 281: 513–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar