New study on Thylacosmilus atrox: “not a marsupial saber-tooth predator”??

Janis et al. 2020
bring us some heretical views regarding Thylacosmilus, the famous saber-toothed marsupial (Fig. 1).

For those in a hurry:
The Janis et al. study includes a phylogenetic analysis of placental sabertooth cats that nests the saber-toothed marsupial, Thylacosmilus (Fig. 1), at the base of the clade (Fig. 2). In a way, that is true, but this is missing so many transitional taxa that we’re left with apples and oranges. So, that’s not going to work because Janis et al. are testing analogy and convergence, rather than homology. It’s better to test apples and apples, even when dealing with stress tests, etc.

Lacking here
is a phylogenetic analysis that includes the closest marsupial relatives of Thylacosmilus: 1. Schowalteria (Fig. 3), 2. Vincelestes + Conorytes, 3. Huerfanodon 4. Monodelphis + Chironectes. That’s how they line up in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1698+ taxa). You need related taxa to decipher the phylogenetic bracketing of Thylacosmilus based on homology, not analogy. The last two taxa are extant. One is an omnivore, the other an aquatic carnivore. Among the extinct taxa, Schowalteria, Vincelestes, Conoryctes and Huefanodon all appear to have been marsupial saber-toothed predators, contra the Janis et al. headline. Vincelestes goes back to the Early Cretaceous.

Janis et all. 2020 wrote:
“While the superficial appearance of Thylacosmilus atrox resembles that of placental saber- tooths, its detailed anatomy makes this animal an ecomorphological puzzle, and the analyses performed here show it to be unlike other carnivores, saber-toothed or otherwise”

That’s because they omitted related taxa…where are the comparable marsupials?

“While we can demonstrate that T. atrox could not have been a predator in the mode proposed for the saber-toothed feliform carnivorans, it is challenging to propose an alternative mode of life.”

That’s because they omitted related taxa…where are the comparable marsupials?

“We note that, while there is often the temptation to shoehorn an extinct animal into the ecomorphological role of an extant one (see Figueirido, Martín-Serra & Janis, 2016)—or even, as in this case, the proposed ecomorphological role another extinct animal—T. atrox may well have had no analogs in the extant or extinct fauna.

That’s because they omitted related taxa…where are the comparable marsupials?

“We extend this discussion of extinct animals without living analogs in the conclusions. Here we present some ecomorphological hypotheses for T. atrox that align with the peculiarities of its anatomy.”

1. We note that the unusual subtriangular shape of these canines makes them appear more like a claw than a blade; and, like a claw, they appear well-adapted for pulling back.
2. Our biomechanical study shows that both the skull and the canines of T. atrox are better in resisting pull back stresses than those of S. fatalis.
3. The small infraorbital foramen of T. atrox supports the hypothesis that its canines were not used for killing prey, as it would not require such careful and precise positioning of the canines.
4. The postcanine teeth of T. atrox exhibit blunted tip wear, unlike the shearing wear on the teeth of carnivores that specialize on flesh
5. T. atrox was clearly not a bone-crusher: this type of diet is contraindicated by the DMTA analysis and the lack of cranial specializations (including evidence for powerful jaw adductors) seen in extant bone-crushers
6. T. atrox had less powerful jaw adductor and head depressor muscles than placental saber-tooths. The cervical and caudal cranial anatomy are not indicative of the ability for extreme head elevation and forceful head depression, as observed in the anatomy of placental saber-tooths, implicated in those carnivores for a predatory head strike.
7. The virtual absence of incisors (certainly the absence of a stout incisor battery) in T. atrox is challenging for the hypothesis of a cat-like mode of feeding, as it would have been unable to strip flesh from a carcass or transport its prey.

Janis et al. wonder:
“Could [soft internal organs] have been the preferred diet of the marsupial saber-tooth?”

Janis et al. propose:
“Incisor loss or reduction in mammals is correlated with the use of a protrusible tongue in feeding, as seen in myrmecophageous mammals.”

Janis et al. propose:
“T. atrox has been ‘‘shoehorned’’ (see Figueirido, Martín-Serra & Janis, 2016) into the saber-tooth ecological role: much less attention has been paid to the way in which this animal differs in its morphology from placental saber-toothed predators, making a similar type of predatory behavior unlikely.

“We advance the suggestion that it was not an active predator, but rather relied on the use of existing carcasses, deploying its large canines for carcass opening rather than for killing, a hypothesis supported by our biomechanical analyses that show superior performance in a ‘‘pull-back’’ scenario.”

“Thylcosmilus atrox was a very different type of carnivorous mammal than the placental saber-tooths: the oft-cited convergence with placentals such as Smilodon fatalis deserves a rethink, and the ‘‘marsupial saber-tooth’’ may have had an ecology unlike any other known carnivorous mammal.”

Geology = Environment
Thylacosmilus was found in a vast Miocene tidal flat environment with a wide variety of terrestrial and shalllow aquatic taxa. So that doesn’t help much.

Saving the best for last: getting back to Late Cretaceaous Schowalteria
Wikipeda report, “It is notable for its large size, being among the largest of Mesozoic mammals,^[ as well as its specialization towards herbivory, which in some respects exceeds that of its later relatives.” This is based on tooth wear, with nearly all crowns gone (Fig. 3) in the only specimen known. Traditionally Schowalteria has been allied with styinodonts (Carnivora close to seals, but not to sea lions) and to taeinodonts (which the LRT found to be poylphyletic). Certainly, what little is known of Schowalteria is similar to these taxa. Others have omitted these LRT sisters in their analyses. Janis et al. omit the word ‘sister’ from their text.

Patagosmilus has been called a sister to Thylacosmilus,
but the LRT nested Patagosmilus (Fig. 5) with the tiny basal therian, Hadrocodium (Fig. 5) as we learned earlier here. Taxon inclusion produces surprises like this.

At times like this it’s good to test.
Deletion of Thylacosmilus changes nothing in the LRT. Deletion of Schowalteria changes nothing in the LRT.

In my opinion
it was great that Janis et al. 2020 tested Thylacosmilus with its placental analogs, but they should also have tested Thylacosmilus with its marsupial homologs.

References
Janis CM, Figueirido B, DeSantis L, Lautenschlager S. 2020. An eye for a tooth: Thylacosmilus was not a marsupial ‘‘saber-tooth predator’’. PeerJ 8:e9346 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9346

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ituzaing%C3%B3_Formation

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2018/12/20/marsupial-sabertooth-taxa-are-polyphyletic/