Doedicurus clavicaudatus Gervais & Ameghino, 1880

Verger, Kévin Le, 2023, Xenarthrans of the collection of Santiago Roth from the Pampean Region of Argentina (Pleistocene), in Zurich, Switzerland, Swiss Journal of Palaeontology (3) 142 (1), pp. 1-39 : 17

Doedicurus clavicaudatus Gervais & Ameghino, 1880

Referred material: Almost complete caudal tube: PIMUZ A/ V 459 ( Fig. 9 ); complete neurocranium and anterior part of the left zygomatic arch: PIMUZ A/ V 4148 ( Fig. 4 ).

Comment: In his 5th catalog, Santiago Roth (1889) mentioned one specimen corresponding to a large glyptodont (No. 217 = PIMUZ A/V 459), later assigned to Do. clavicaudatus by Schulthess (1920), and one specimen corresponding to a "mysterious" glyptodont neurocranium (No. 215 = PIMUZ A/V 4148), both belonging to the late Ensenadan and the Bonaerian. During her revision, Schulthess (1920) attributed the neurocranium to Doedicurus sp. without providing details. Nowadays, the genus is considered monospecific and therefore contains only the species Do. clavicaudatus for which we know only well-identified remains in the Lujanian, although the diversity of the subfamily needs to be completely revised (see Núñez-Blasco et al., 2021). In the literature, the existence of Doedicurus in the Ensenadan was proposed by Ameghino (1889) on the basis of a revision of Burmeister’s (1879) material, which led him to define the species Doedicurus kokenianus Ameghino, 1889 . Tis new species was contested because the geographic provenances of the specimens used to define Do. kokenianus are imprecise. Lydekker (1895) synonymized Do. kokenianus with Do. clavicaudatus , a proposal rejected by Castellanos (1940). Several authors agree that a complete revision of the Pleistocene Doedicurinae is necessary (e.g., Núñez-Blasco et al., 2021; Soibelzon et al., 2010). Christen et al. have addressed the cranial anatomy of PIMUZ A/V 4148 in another study (this volume), but the determination of the specimen requires a deeper investigation within the Doedicurinae. Because of the current monospecific nature of Doedicurus , I preliminary consider the assignment to Do. clavicaudatus of PIMUZ A/V 459 (see Núñez-Blasco et al., 2021) and PIMUZ A/V 4148 (this volume). However, I encourage colleagues wishing to revisit the diversity of the Doedicurinae to consider these specimens from the Roth collection at PIMUZ either to extend the stratigraphic distribution of Do. clavicaudatus as proposed here, to revalidate the species Do. kokenianus , or to define a new species within the Doedicurinae as suggested by Roth (1889).

Figures

Fig. 9 Plate of glyptodont caudal armors/tubes from the Roth collection at PIMUZ. Each Pleistocene glyptodont ‘subfamily’ is represented in the collection. Scale bar= 10 cm

Fig. 4 Plate of crania belonging to the Cingulata from the Roth collection at PIMUZ.The most complete remains illustrated here correspond to the Eutatini and glyptodonts. Scale bar =10 cm