Abstract

It has been proposed that suids were absent from Europe during the post-Olduvai to pre-Jaramillo Early Pleistocene (from less than 1.8 to more than 1.2 Ma) and that their “re-appearance” in the late Early Pleistocene would mark the end of the late Villafranchian and the beginning of the Epivillafranchian. Arguments enumerated in favor of this “suid gap” are the lack of suid remains from extensively sampled fossil localities of this age and the high reproductive potential (r-strategy) of suids, which would translate in a high commonness of their remains in the fossil record. However, here it shown that while suids’ reproductive potential is certainly exceptional within artiodactyls, there is no direct relationship between the reproductive strategy and preservation rate of a taxon in the fossil record. In Early Pleistocene localities of Europe and adjoining areas, where suids are present in a fossil assemblage, they are always rare. In terms of number of occurrences (frequency), suids range from being moderately common (~2.0–1.8 Ma) to moderately rare (~1.1–1.0 Ma). Suid material is also described herein from Peyrolles (Issoire, France; reference locality for MNQ 19), a site dated at 1.47 Ma, providing direct evidence for the presence of suids within the purported “suid gap”. The case of suids underlines an important source of caveat in inferring faunal dynamics of the late Early Pleistocene of western Europe—including the dispersal of hominins—i.e., the unequal geographical distribution of the paleontological sites of post-Olduvai to pre-Jaramillo age. Indeed, Peyrolles is the only large mammal site in western Europe located outside the Iberian and Italian Peninsulas reliably dated around 1.5 Ma. In the post-Olduvai to pre-Jaramillo period, there is a paucity of radiometric estimates (or they have too coarse a resolution) and of paleomagnetic excursions detectable in continental deposits. Basically, for this time span, there is a high dependence on biochronological correlations, although, at the same time, these correlations are less reliable—because these are based on a few sites not covering the entire spectrum of environments present in Europe and the sites are not independently dated with methods that outperform biochronology—than those for other periods.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.