Abstract
Viviparity is a reproductive mode in which the embryo completes their development inside the female body. Present-day mammals, with the exception of monotremes, are viviparous, as opposed to the egg-laying reproductive mode of most vertebrates. Non-therian cynodonts are regarded as oviparous although direct evidence on the reproductive modes in extinct taxa is lacking. We identified, in a palaeohistological study, a neonatal line in two bones of the early probainognathian Chiniquodon theotonicus from the Late Triassic of South America. The body mass at birth is comparable to that observed in living placentals, and notably higher than the one registered for monotremes, marsupials, lepidosaurs, crocodiles, and birds. Our results reveal that viviparity is not exclusive of therians among synapsids, pushing back its recognition in the clade ~90–95Myr.
1 Introduction
Viviparity is an important acquisition in mammalian evolution, characteristic of modern therians and thought to have played a key role in their evolutionary success (). This reproductive mode contrasts with oviparity, the plesiomorphic condition for vertebrates (; ; ). Nevertheless, viviparity has evolved independently more than 150 times among vertebrates (; ). Extant therians share a complex array of coadapted features (such as placentation, lactation, and its endocrine regulation) that suggest that viviparity is a synapomorphy of the clade (; ; ; ; ; but see , ; ). Monotremes, despite presenting some sort of placentation (i.e., absorption of oviductal secretions as opposed to the yolk sac or chorioallantoic types of placenta present in therians), lay eggs ().
Non-mammalian synapsids have been regarded as oviparous (; ), although no fossil eggs assignable to them were found. Only recently, the finding of an embryo of the dicynodont Lystrosaurus in an in ovo position demonstrated oviparity in early synapsids (). Despite being unknown, it has been generally upheld that early synapsid eggs were soft-shelled, and thus, unlikely to fossilize (; ; ). There is an abundant synapsid fossil record from several Palaeozoic and Mesozoic localities, including lagerstätten and mass-mortality deposits (e.g., ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Furthermore, some early cynodonts have been proposed to live in intraspecific aggregations () and to have inhabited burrows (; ; ; ), scenarios that are expected to enhance the preservation potential of eggs and/or perinatal individuals. Nevertheless, there is a single record of perinatal non-mammalian cynodonts (), but it is inconclusive regarding if a viviparous or oviparous reproductive mode was in place.
Previous attempts to discern if non-mammalian cynodonts laid eggs or gave birth to fully developed offspring have failed because evidence from extant amniotes is insufficient to properly test such hypotheses (; ). Current theories assume a single evolutionary origin of viviparity in the synapsid lineage, at the base of Theria (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Here we challenge the universally accepted hypothesis that all non-therian cynodonts were oviparous () and reveal that viviparity evolved in the synapsid clade as early as the early Late Triassic (~236 Myr) among non-mammaliaform cynodonts, predating the estimated origin of Theria in the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous (; ).
2 Results
We report on new information supplied by Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen CRILAR-PV109 (Figure 1A), which was found in the traditional, rich fossiliferous levels of the Chañares Formation (Carnian, early Late Triassic) in north-western Argentina (; ). It is a partially articulated skeleton, including skull and several postcranial elements. There are more than 50 Chiniquodon theotonicus specimens recovered from the Chañares Formation, ranging in skull length from ~50 mm to about ~160 mm. With a basal skull length of 160 mm, CRILAR-PV109 is among the largest individuals reported for this species in the unit (; ). Hence, considering the relatively high number of known specimens of Chiniquodon theotonicus and their size range, we argue that the studied Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen (CRILAR-PV109) is large enough to be interpreted as an adult, and most probably a fully grown animal. This working hypothesis is also supported by the fact that all skull bones are strongly sutured to each other, all teeth are fully erupted, and the postcranium is completely ossified, including tarsal and carpal bones.
Figure 1
2.1 Paleohistology
The femoral and ulnar cortices in Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen CRILAR-PV109 are almost entirely formed of densely vascularized fibrolamellar bone tissue, which is a composite primary tissue formed by a periosteal matrix of woven fibered bone with a lamellar bone matrix of intracortical origin lining the vascular spaces (primary osteons) (Figures 1B–H; Supplementary Figures S1–S4; see Supplementary Material for detailed histological descriptions). Vascularization mostly consists of abundant radially oriented canals (longitudinal and circumferential canals are also present, but in a minor density) (Figures 1B–H; Supplementary Figures S3, S4).
The examined long bones of Chiniquodon theotonicus show medullary cavities of exceptionally small diameter, which, in combination with the little secondary remodeling, resulted in the preservation of embryonic tissues. An abrupt change in the histological pattern of Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen CRILAR-PV109 is observed in the innermost preserved primary bone tissue, which contains a minor density of mostly longitudinally oriented vascular canals (Figures 1E, F; Supplementary Figures S1–S4). The internal diameter of the vascular canals in the perimedullary region is also noticeably reduced in comparison to that observed in most of the cortex. In addition, the matrix of the fibrolamellar bone exhibits a higher amount of concentrically arranged fibers (Figures 1E, F; Supplementary Figures S1–S4), being the modification in the intrinsic fiber arrangement more pronounced in the ulna (Supplementary Figures S1, S3). The abrupt histological change between the perimedullary and the more external region in the femur and ulna of the Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen studied here represents an event that occurred very early in the life history of this animal and can be interpreted as a growth mark related to birth (i.e., neonatal line; see Discussion).
2.2 Body-mass estimations and comparisons with extant amniotes
The neonatal line represents the bone circumference at the moment of birth (), which can be employed for body-mass estimations (; ), a proxy to body size. Hence, we used different regression equations to estimate the body mass reached by this individual and compared the results to the weight at the time of birth, as marked by the neonatal line. Body-mass estimations for Chiniquodon theotonicus were based on the femoral circumference at mid-shaft, using three equations originally proposed for carnivorans (in general) and specifically for felids and for canids (). All three methods predict an almost identical body mass for Chiniquodon theotonicus at the moment of death (Supplementary Table S1). The regressions based on all carnivoran species and on felids resulted in very similar estimations for the neonate body mass whereas the canid equation resulted in a proportionally high value (almost double). This suggests that the canids-based equation might not be useful for very small individuals and should be considered with care. The body-mass averages resultant from using equations are 11.99 kg at the time of death and 1.68 kg for the neonate, representing the body mass at birth 14.04% of the maximum weight reached.
With the aim to test our results regarding the body mass of Chiniquodon theotonicus at the time of death, we used the skull length as a proxy to body weight. We employed an equation based on data from extant carnivorans (; ). Furthermore, considering our estimations of the Chiniquodon theotonicus neonate body mass and utilizing the same equation (), we calculated the approximate length of the skull at the moment of birth on the basis of the estimated body weight from the neonatal line. We found that the estimations using the skull length are congruent with those calculated from the femoral circumference employing equations based on all carnivoran, felid, and canid species. In addition, it is predicted that the skull length of the Chiniquodon theotonicus (CRILAR-PV109) neonate would have been between 40 mm and 50 mm. This length range is similar to that of the smallest Chiniquodon theotonicus skulls known, i.e., specimens MCZ 4296 and PVL 4675 (). Hence, we propose that these latter specimens represent perinates, a suggestion that is also supported by the recognition of several features suggestive of a very young age (e.g., number of teeth, skull proportions, bone morphology).
To test the hypothesis that Chiniquodon theotonicus reproductive strategy was more similar to that of placental mammals than to other amniotes, we compared the estimated body mass of specimen CRILAR-PV109 at the time of birth and death with hatchling, neonate, and adult body masses of extant amniotes, including 1869 mammals, 2619 non-avian reptiles, and 782 birds (Supplementary Data S1-S3). The neonate body mass predicted for Chiniquodon theotonicus is most comparable to that observed in extant placentals of similar adult sizes (Figure 2). The neonate to maximum-reached body weight proportion estimated for Chiniquodon theotonicus (i.e., between 10% and 20%) is similar to placentals of a broad phylogenetic spectrum (Figure 2A; Supplementary Data S1). On the contrary, monotremes and marsupials are extremely small at birth, most of them less than 0.15% of the adult body mass (; ) (Figure 2B; Supplementary Data S1). Lepidosaurs, crocodiles, birds, and placentals share a comparable tendency in which larger adults produce larger younglings, and a similar range of variation of the neonate to adult body-mass proportion (Figure 2B; Supplementary Data S1–S3). However, independently of their reproductive mode, adult lepidosaurs and crocodiles of more than 10 kg produce relatively small offspring when compared to placental mammals (Figure 2B; Supplementary Data S1, S2). In these taxa, the hatchlings do not represent more than 0.62% of the female body weight. Extant birds with adult body weights above 10 kg, produce hatchlings heavier than those of lepidosaurs and crocodiles and comparable to some placentals (Figure 2B; Supplementary Data S1, S3). Nevertheless, in these bird species, the hatchling weight represents a relatively small percentage of the adult body mass (between 0.002% and 0.024%). Conversely, similar sized placentals can give birth to notably larger younglings that can represent more than 22% of the adult body mass.
Figure 2
In order to statistically test the observation that estimations of the body mass of Chiniquodon theotonicus are in line with data from placental mammals (Figures 2A, B), we performed a discriminant analysis and a K-nearest neighbors test (Supplementary Data S4). We used the log transformed neonate and adult body-mass estimates for Chiniquodon theotonicus to infer to which extant amniote clade it is more similar (Figure 2C). In every case, Chiniquodon theotonicus was grouped with placentals with high probability.
Evidence regarding reproductive strategies in non-mammalian synapsids has also been presented for the early form Ophiacodon retroversus, the dicynodont Lystrosaurus, and the non-mammaliaform cynodont Kayentatherium wellesi (; ; ). Accordingly, we included these taxa in our database in order to analyze how they compare to extant amniotes.
Including Ophiacodon retroversus in our study is methodologically prevented by the fact that the equations employed in our manuscript require the femoral circumference, a datum that it is not available for the hatchling/neonate specimen reported for this taxon (). However, the humeral circumference could be employed instead of the femoral one, considering that the circumference of these two bones is similar (see Methods). The perinate to adult body-mass ratio in Ophiacodon retroversus (between 2.62% and 7.76%, depending on the equation used for estimating the body mass) is like that of some placentals, non-avian reptiles, and birds, whereas it is much higher than that of marsupials or monotremes with equivalent weight as adults (Figure 2A). Conversely, the body mass of the hatchlings of Ophiacodon retroversus is found to be comparable to that of some non-avian reptiles, and much lower than that of placentals and birds of similar adult sizes (Figure 2B). The K-nearest neighbors analysis classifies it alternatively as a non-avian reptile, a bird or a placental (Supplementary Data S4).
In the case of Lystrosaurus, we considered the body-mass estimations for the adult (i.e., 8.825 kg, 18.511 kg, and 50 kg) and the perinate (i.e., 115 g) as proposed in the literature ( and references therein). The perinate to adult body-mass ratio in Lystrosaurus (between 0.2% and 1.3% depending on the adult body mass considered) is most similar to that of some birds, whereas it is lower than that of placentals and higher than that of non-avian reptiles, marsupials or monotremes with equivalent weight as adults (Figure 2A). The body mass of the hatchlings of Lystrosaurus is lower than that of most placentals and birds, and larger than that of most non-avian reptiles of similar adult sizes (Figure 2B). When included in the discriminant analysis (Supplementary Data S4), Lystrosaurus is plotted in the intersection between the non-avian reptile, the avian, and the placental fields (Figure 2C). In addition, the K-nearest neighbors analysis shows that it is classified alternatively as a non-avian reptile, a bird or a placental.
Regarding the tritylodontid Kayentatherium wellesi, we found that the perinate to adult body-mass ratio in Kayentatherium wellesi (0.01%) is most similar to that of monotremes, marsupials, and non-avian reptiles, and lower than that of birds and placentals with equivalent weight as adults (Figure 2A). The proposed body mass of the perinates (i.e., 4.7 g; ) is lower than that of non-avian reptiles, birds or placentals and larger than that of marsupials of similar adult sizes (Figure 2B). Kayentatherium wellesi was invariably classified as a non-avian reptile in the K-nearest neighbors analysis (Supplementary Data S4).
3 Discussion
The important histological change recognized between the perimedullary and the more external region in the femur and ulna of Chiniquodon theotonicus is coincident in timing and characteristics with a growth mark related to birth as observed in extant amniotes (; ; Figure 1I–P). The presence of this non-cyclical growth mark is independent of the growth rate and has been reported in reptiles and mammals (e.g., ; ; ). Whether this mark is a neonatal or a hatching line cannot be distinguished histologically, but evidence supporting one or the other reproductive mode (i.e., viviparous or oviparous) is available through body-mass comparisons.
Data from extant amniotes, as presented herein, strongly support that the structure recognized in Chiniquodon theotonicus is a neonatal line (e.g., ; ; ). The neonatal line represents a quick change in the rate of bone deposition, with an acceleration in growth rate after the event of birth (). This shift in the rate of bone deposition is not necessarily represented by a line of arrested growth (LAG; ; ) and has been related to changes in bone tissue type, including variations in the fibrillar organization (i.e., from a more organized to a more disorganized bone matrix) and in the arrangement and size of the vascular canals (i.e., from smaller, mainly longitudinal canals to larger, mostly radial canals) in extant placentals (; ; ). It is noteworthy that the histological features related to the neonatal line differ among living placentals (e.g., different species of extant horses, the large rodent Lagostomus maximus, and Sus scrofa; ; ; Figures 1I–P), even between bones of the same species (). However, in every case, the histological features recognized are interpreted to represent an abrupt acceleration in the growth rate, such as in the femur and ulna of Chiniquodon theotonicus. The histological changes that follow the neonatal line have been related to an increase in the bone deposition rate and in the biomechanical requirements for weight-bearing and locomotion immediately after birth (; ; ).
It is rare for neonatal lines and other similar histological structures (e.g., hatching line) to be preserved, except for very-young individuals, because the expansion of the medullary cavity occurs usually shortly after birth and causes the embryonic bone to be reabsorbed (; ). However, there are cases where remnants of embryonic tissue (including calcified cartilage) are preserved in the adult. Whereas this is common in aquatic-adapted forms such as sirenians, it can also occur in terrestrial forms (). Among non-mammalian synapsids, only the early form Ophiacodon retroversus has been reported to preserve embryonic tissues (). Embryonic tissues have not been previously recovered in any of the 25 studied species of non-mammalian cynodonts (, ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ).
Body-mass estimations of the studied specimen of Chiniquodon theotonicus (CRILAR-PV109) were obtained using equations constructed for the purpose of estimating the weight of extinct taxa. In particular, considering that our study required the body-mass estimation of a synapsid on the basis of measurements exclusively obtained from its femoral cross-section, we used equations presented by based on extant mammals. Although we are aware that the modern species from which these equations were obtained could not be very appropriate analogues due to differences in body proportions or other biological traits (e.g., ; ), these equations represent the best proxies available to our knowledge. Putative inaccuracies in the mass estimates at the time of birth and death of the Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen studied here are expected to be similarly biased, thus our inferences regarding the proportion between neonate and maximum-reached weight would remain valid. It has been suggested that equations based on adult individuals might not be accurate to estimate body mass at early ontogenetic stages due to the non-linear growth of mammals (). However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no published equations linking the femoral circumference and the body mass in non-biped mammals that have been constructed considering ontogeny. Hence, we have employed those equations available that have been accepted by the scientific community, following previous authors that encountered similar problems (e.g., ).
Chiniquodon theotonicus inferred weight at birth and its neonate to maximum-reached body-mass proportion are larger than those of birds and most placentals of comparable adult sizes. The relatively high body-mass estimates obtained for Chiniquodon theotonicus around the time of birth are probably due to the equations retrieving larger body-mass predictions for very small individuals. Nevertheless, despite this issue, the body-mass estimations of the neonate Chiniquodon theotonicus are more comparable to that of extant placentals than to any other living amniote. The scarcely known postcranial skeleton of Chiniquodon theotonicus (e.g., ) precludes the analysis of its pelvic anatomy, which could be a source of additional comparisons with extant placentals that give birth to relatively large younglings. Our results provide evidence of viviparity in Chiniquodon theotonicus, which ties in with recent findings showing that other remarkable features of present-day mammals (e.g., motile rhinarium, maxillary vibrissae, enlarged cerebellum, body hair coverage, and lactation) originated at the root of Probainognathia (; ) (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Our finding contrasts with the generally accepted idea that non-therian synapsids were oviparous, an hypothesis that is mostly untested. Evidence from early synapsids is available from Ophiacodon retroversus. The non-cyclical growth mark reported in a humerus of this taxon was interpreted as a hatching line, although the possibility of it being a neonatal line was not discussed (). Although circumstantial, our results regarding body-mass comparisons of the hatchlings of Ophiacodon retroversus suggest that the reproductive mode of this early synapsid might have been somewhat more similar to non-avian reptiles than to other extant amniotes.
The finding of an embryo in an in ovo position is a strong support to the hypothesis that the dicynodont Lystrosaurus produced eggs (). Nevertheless, comparisons with extant amniotes as performed herein depict Lystrosaurus in the limit between the data fields of non-avian reptiles, birds, and placentals; hence, our analyses are inconclusive regarding to which extant amniote clade the reproductive mode of Lystrosaurus was most similar to. A possibility might be that Lystrosaurus presented a reproductive strategy in which the egg was retained inside the mother (i.e., extended embryo retention strategy), which could explain the relatively large hatchling size (see ).
The large size of Lystrosaurus perinates suggests that this taxon produced small clutches of relatively large individuals. This interpretation contrasts with the reproductive biology comparable to non-avian reptiles proposed for the tritylodontid Kayentatherium wellesi (). The discovery of a large number perinates of Kayentatherium wellesi led to the interpretation that at least some early mammaliamorphs retained the purported plesiomorphic condition for amniotes, consisting of a large litter of very small new-born whereas small litters are considered to constitute a derived mammalian trait (). Nevertheless, clutch/litter size and mass are dependent on several factors, extrinsic and intrinsic to organisms, and it might be that clutch/litter mass is a more appropriate proxy for inferring the reproductive strategy than clutch/litter size (e.g., ; and references therein). The clutch/litter mass relative to the adult mass inferred for Kayentatherium wellesi is not identical or particularly close to that of any extant amniote (: figure 3B). The clutch/litter mass of Kayentatherium wellesi is lower than expected for any extant mammal or reptile with a similar adult mass but, among relatively large animals, only some placentals (in particular the giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are shown to give birth to litters of so relatively low mass as that inferred for Kayentatherium wellesi (: figure 3B). Although not included in the originally published dataset, it is interesting to note that Macropus giganteus (i.e., the giant kangaroo, one of the largest extant marsupials) has an adult female mass of 41.5 kg and a litter mass of 0.87 g (Supplementary Data S1). Hence, the minimum litter mass hypothesized for Kayentatherium wellesi (i.e., 178.6 g) is much higher than expected if it had a marsupial-like reproductive strategy. The analyses performed herein do not allow to discern which group of extant amniotes Kayentatherium wellesi is most comparable to. Presently, the reproductive mode of Kayentatherium wellesi cannot be determined using the available information. This early mammaliamorph might have presented a different, still unknown reproductive strategy.
Considering the observations above, it might be tempting to suggest that early synapsids (represented by Ophiacodon retroversus) had a reptilian-like reproductive strategy (i.e., they were oviparous); dicynodonts (represented by Lystrosaurus) had a reproductive strategy that involved extended embryo retention; early probainognathians (represented by Chiniquodon theotonicus) had a placental-like reproductive strategy; and Kayentatherium wellesi had a reproductive strategy that might have been comparable to those presented by present day monotremes or marsupials. However, it must be acknowledged that this is a highly-speculative evolutionary scenario, in which our analyses are not conclusive regarding the reproductive strategies of Ophiacodon retroversus, Lystrosaurus, and Kayentatherium wellesi.
It has been inferred that multituberculates (as represented by Kryptobaatar) were viviparous considering the anatomy of the pelvis and that they acquired this reproductive strategy independently from therian mammals (). Additionally, on the basis of measurements and reconstruction of the purported birth canal, multituberculates were hypothesized to give birth to very small offsprings with relatively narrow skulls when compared to the adults, narrower than in some present-day placentals such as mice but similar to the ratio found in the marsupial Antechinus stuarti (). In opposition, argued that if multituberculate laid eggs, these eggs would have been extremely small when compared to the adult size (i.e., smaller than in any known cleidoic egg). It is not presently known how marsupial and placental reproductive strategies evolved. Although it has been suggested that viviparity is a synapomorphy of Theria (; ; ; ; ), there are those who argued that this condition might have been acquired independently in marsupials and placentals (, ; ). Viviparity in mammals has been proposed to be strongly correlated with an epigenetic process known as parent-of-origin gene expression (i.e., genomic imprinting), which is only recognized in therians (). Many of the most notable mammalian characteristics (e.g., homeothermy, large brain size, invasive placentation, nutrient transfer between fetus and female, milk production, maternal behavior associated with milk suckling) have been linked to the development of this mechanism (; ). Available evidence from extant mammals suggests that the evolution of genomic imprinting was gradual (; ). Monotremes lack imprinted regions but the insertion of retrotransposons and the accumulation of repeated elements within their genome have been interpreted as key mechanisms for the subsequent evolution of genomic imprinting (, ). Genomic imprinting is inferred to have been present in the common ancestor of Theria, but it has continued to evolve independently in metatherians and eutherians, becoming more complex in the latter (; ; ; ). In marsupials, only six imprinted genes have been identified in the placenta (, ; ) whereas, in placentals, 55 imprinted genes have been found to be expressed in the longer-lived choriovitelline placenta (; ; ). Presently, the implications of genomic imprinting on reproductive biology are not completely understood. In addition, the mechanisms governing the genes involved in genomic imprinting or how genomic imprinting evolved in the marsupial and placental clades are also unclear. Consequently, it is not possible to evaluate how feasible it is for marsupial or placental reproductive strategies to evolve more than once.
If Chiniquodon theotonicus was viviparous, as our results suggest, this invites a revisiting of the evolutionary history of this reproductive mode among synapsids. The mapping of viviparity and oviparity on a phylogenetic reconstruction results in two equally parsimonious scenarios (Figure 3). One of them, representing the traditional view, hypothesizes that oviparity is the ancestral condition for crown Mammalia (; ). According to this, the viviparous reproductive mode proposed for Chiniquodon theotonicus represents an independent, non-homologous event of acquisition of viviparity from therians, with genomic imprinting evolving independently at least twice in the clade (i.e., in Chiniquodon theotonicus and in Theria). Retrotransposition and gene duplication are best interpreted as having happened once among synapsids (i.e., in the clade reuniting Chiniquodon theotonicus and crown-mammals or earlier). This supports the idea that the genetic basis for viviparity, retrotransposition and gene duplication on the one hand and genomic imprinting on the other, evolved in a step-way manner (; ). Under this view, viviparity in Chiniquodon theotonicus represents yet another case of independent origin of this reproductive mode among vertebrates (, ). In the alternative scenario, a single, homologous event of acquisition of viviparity among synapsids is hypothesized. This reproductive mode was achieved early in the mammalian lineage, whereas a reversion to the ancestral oviparous condition is displayed by monotremes. Viviparity is thus interpreted to be plesiomorphic for crown Mammalia. The evolutionary history of retrotransposition, gene duplication, and genomic imprinting is suggested to be coupled. Hence, the genetic basis for viviparity is best interpreted to have originated in a single event among Triassic probainognathians, at least in the clade defined by Chiniquodon theotonicus plus mammals. Being equally parsimonious, it cannot be determined which hypothesis is more likely. However, it should be noted that the first one favors instances of homoplasy (i.e., multiple acquisitions of viviparity) whereas the second one upholds the homology of viviparity while requiring a reversal to the ancestral condition in monotremes (Figure 3) ().
4 Materials and methods
4.1 Specimen studied
Specimen CRILAR-PV109 was buried in light olive grey and light bluish grey tuffaceous siltstones deposited in a littoral low-energy mudflat (). The specimen is well preserved and includes: the skull, vertebrae (i.e., both atlas arches, axis, and cervical, dorsal, and caudal vertebrae), ribs, elements of the pectoral and pelvic girdles (i.e., clavicle, scapula, ilium, ischium, and pubis), limb bones (i.e., radius, ulna, radial, carpals, metacarpals, femur, tibia, fibula tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges). More than 50% of the skeleton of CRILAR-PV109 is partially articulated, exhibiting an equal representation of the anterior and posterior portions of the animal. The remains occupy a superficial area of approximately 0.12 m² within a single stratigraphic horizon. The partially disarticulated elements are still associated with a slightly random dispersal pattern, most probably related to the action of low-energy currents as suggested by the Voorhies group analysis (). Furthermore, the bones exhibit post-mortem modifications, such as uniform, slight cracking and flaking, consistent with weathering stage 0-1 (sensu ). This suggests a brief period of subaerial exposure prior to burial and an absence of time-averaging for the assemblage. The taphonomic features observed, the consistent size of the bones, and the absence of duplicated elements support that they represent a single individual.
The specimen CRILAR-PV109 was positively assigned to Chiniquodon theotonicus on the basis of the presence of the following combination of diagnostic characters of this species (): secondary well-developed palate, relatively short snout, angulation (c. 110° or more) between the ventral edge of the maxillary zygomatic process and the anteroventral margin of the jugal, greatly elongated pterygoid flanges ending in a thin projection and directed posteroventrally, and sectorial postcanine teeth having no cingula and with their main cusp lacking serrated edges.
4.2 Institutional abbreviations
CRILAR-PV, Centro Regional de Investigaciones Científicas y Transferencia Tecnológica de La Rioja, Argentina; MCZ, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, U.S.A.; PVL, Paleontología Vertebrados Lillo, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Argentina.
4.3 Histological methodology
In order to analyze the bone microstructure of Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen CRILAR-PV109, thin sections from the right ulna and the left femur were performed. The transverse sections were obtained from the midshaft of each element. To avoid loss of anatomical information, a cast of the sectioned elements was made before sampling. The thin sections were prepared at Paleohistological Laboratory of the Museo Provincial Carlos Ameghino (Cipolletti, Argentina), using the standard methods outlined by , and analyzed using a petrographic polarizing microscope (Leica DM750P). The nomenclature and definitions of structures used in this study are derived from and .
4.4 Mass estimations
proposed mass-estimation equations based on the femoral circumference measurements in modern carnivores. To produce these equations, he employed least-squares regressions of log10 transformed data. The relationship between the dependent and independent variables (body mass and femoral circumference at midshaft, respectively) is expressed as the power function:
Where the slope, k, and the intercept, log10(b), vary according to the mammal group in which the equation is based.
The equation produced using data from all considered carnivoran species is:
That produced using felid species measurements is:
The one that resulted from analyzing canids is:
The body mass of Chiniquodon theotonicus (CRILAR-PV109) was calculated using these three models. We estimated its weight at the time of birth and death from the femoral circumference at midshaft, measuring the neonatal line (17.3 mm) and the external surface (35.81 mm), respectively.
The body mass at the time of birth and death of Ophiacodon retroversus was also estimated using the above models but considering the humeral circumference instead of the femoral one. For this purpose, we used the circumference represented by the hatchling line (preserved in specimen MCZ-5926 - MOS II; 20.828 mm) and the external surface represented by the external fundamental system (preserved in specimen MCZ-1486 - MOS V; 44 mm).
For these measurements, we employed the software ImageJ 1.45s ().
The equation based on data from extant carnivorans (; ) that links body mass and skull length (measured from the anterior tip of the snout to the posterior end of the occipital condyles) was employed to test our results (i.e., calculate the body mass of Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen CRILAR-PV109 at the time of death and its predicted skull length at the time of birth):
log10(body mass in kg) = 3.13. log10(skull length in mm) – 5.59
4.5 Discriminant analysis and K-nearest neighbors test
We performed a discriminant analysis and a K-nearest neighbors test as implemented in the software Past 4.16c (). The variables employed were the decimal logarithm of the body masses enumerated in Supplementary Data S1–S3, the body masses estimated for Ophiacodon retroversus, Lystrosaurus, and Kayentatherium wellesi, and the average of the weight estimates from Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen CRILAR-PV109 (Supplementary Data S4). For the K-nearest neighbors test, extant amniotes represented the training set whereas extinct taxa were to be alternatively classified. We employed the weighting scheme due to , Euclidean and Manhattan distance indexes were considered, and the parameter K was varied from 1 to 1400.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The manuscript presents research on animals that do not require ethical approval for their study.
Author contributions
LG: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation. MB: Writing – review & editing, Visualization. IC: Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AM: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Funds that partially covered the costs of fieldwork, mechanical preparation, and histological sectioning were available from the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológica (grant 11220210100827CO) and Agencia de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (grants PICT-2020-SERIEA-01498 and PICT-2021-I-A-00619).
Acknowledgments
We thank the Administración de Parques Nacionales and C. A. Ormeño and A. Mercado Luna (Dirección de Patrimonio Arqueológico y Paleontológico, Secretaría de Cultura de La Rioja) for granting the required permits. L. Fiorelli (Centro Regional de Investigaciones Científicas y Transferencia Tecnológica de La Rioja – CRILAR) is thanked for allowing the histological sectioning of the specimen under his care. We acknowledge the rangers at the Parque Nacional Talampaya for the continuous aid and logistic support along many years, the Chañares fieldwork team that led to the discovery and collection of the Chiniquodon theotonicus specimen studied here, and J. Kaluza, A. Moreno, D. Martínez, and L. Iglesias for assistance with its preparation. C. Gaetano, C. Cataldo, L. Luci, F. Seoane, C. Marsicano, and R. Irmis are appreciated for discussions on this topic. We thank John Dunning for helping us to increase our database on extant bird weights. We are grateful for the editor and reviewers’ constructive comments and suggestions. This is L.C.G.’s contribution R-558 to the IDEAN. L.C.G. dedicates this work to his father Carlos Alberto Gaetano.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmamm.2026.1845319/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AbdalaF.CisnerosJ. C.SmithR. M. H. (2006). Faunal aggregation in the Early Triassic Karoo Basin: earliest evidence of shelter-sharing behavior among tetrapods? Palaios21, 507–512. doi: 10.2110/palo.2005.p06-001r
2
AbdalaF.GianniniN. P. (2002). Chiniquodontid cynodonts: systematic and morphometric considerations. Palaeontology45, 1151–1170. doi: 10.1111/1475-4983.00280
3
AndersonJ. F.Hall-MartinA.RussellD. A. (1985). Long-bone circumference and weight in mammals, birds and dinosaurs. J. Zool. Lond.207, 53–61. doi: 10.17077/0021-065x.2053
4
AngeliniF.GhiaraG. (1984). Reproductive modes and strategies in vertebrate evolution. Ital. J. Zool.51, 121–203. doi: 10.1080/11250008409439459
5
AnyongeW. (1993). Body mass in large extant and extinct carnivores. J. Zool. Lond.231, 339–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1993.tb01922.x
6
BehrensmeyerA. K. (1978). Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology4, 150–162. doi: 10.1017/s0094837300005820
7
BenoitJ.FernandezV.BothaJ. (2026). The first non-mammalian synapsid embryo from the Triassic of South Africa. PloS One21, e0345016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345016
8
BenoitJ.MangerP. R.RubidgeB. S. (2016). Palaeoneurological clues to the evolution of defining mammalian soft tissue traits. Sci. Rep.6, 25604. doi: 10.1038/srep25604
9
BenoitJ.NxumaloM.NortonL. A.FernandezV.GaetanoL. C.RubidgeB.et al. (2022). Synchrotron scanning sheds new light on Lumkuia fuzzi (Therapsida, Cynodontia) from the Middle Triassic of South Africa and its phylogenetic placement. J. Afr. Earth. Sci.196, 104689. doi: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2022.104689
10
BenoitJ.RufI.MiyamaeJ.FernándezV.RodriguesP. G.RubidgeB. S. (2020). The evolution of the maxillary canal in Probainognathia (Cynodontia, Synapsida): reassessment of the homology of the infraorbital foramen in mammalian ancestors. J. Mammal. Evol.27, 329–348. doi: 10.1007/s10914-019-09467-8
11
Bininda-EmondsO.CardilloM.JonesK. E.MacPheeR.BeckR. M.GrenyerR.et al. (2007). The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature446, 507–512. doi: 10.1038/nature05634
12
BlackburnD. G. (1999). “ Viviparity and oviparity. Evolution and reproductive strategies,” in Encyclopedia of Reproduction, Vol. 4. Eds. KnobilT. E.NeillJ. D. (London: Academic Press), 994–1003.
13
BlackburnD. G. (2015). Evolution of vertebrate viviparity and specializations for fetal nutrition: a quantitative and qualitative analysis. J. Morphol.276, 961–990. doi: 10.1002/jmor.20272
14
BothaJ. (2002). The Palaeobiology of the non–Mammalian Cynodonts Deduced From Bone Microstructure and Stable Isotopes (Cape Town: University of Cape Town).
15
BothaJ.ChinsamyA. (2005). Growth patterns of Thrinaxodon liorhinus, a non-mammalian cynodont from the lower Triassic of South Africa. Palaeontology48, 385–394. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2005.00447.x
16
Botha-BrinkJ.AbdalaF.ChinsamyA. (2012). “ The radiation and osteohistology of nonmammaliaform cynodonts,” in The Forerunners of Mammals: Radiation, Histology, Biology. Ed. Chinsamy-TuranA. (Indiana: Indiana University), 310–341.
17
Botha-BrinkJ.Bento SoaresM.MartinelliA. G. (2018). Osteohistology of Late Triassic prozostrodontian cynodonts from Brazil. PeerJ6, e5029. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5029
18
Botha-BrinkJ.ChinsamyA. (2000). Growth patterns deduced from the bone histology of the cynodonts Diademodon and Cynognathus. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.20, 705–711. doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0705:GPDFTB]2.0.CO;2
19
Botha-BrinkJ.ChinsamyA. (2004). Growth and life habits of the Triassic cynodont Trirachodon, inferred from bone histology. Acta Palaeontol. Pol.49, 619–627.
20
ButlerE.AbdalaF.Botha-BrinkJ. (2019). Postcranial morphology of the Early Triassic epicynodont Galesaurus planiceps (Owen) from the Karoo Basin, South Africa. Pap. Palaeontol.5, 1–32. doi: 10.1002/spp2.1220
21
CalderonT.ArnoldW.StalderG.PainerJ.KöhlerM. (2021). Labelling experiments in red deer provide a general model for early bone growth dynamics in ruminants. Sci. Rep.11, 14074. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93547-4
22
CastanetJ.BaezM. (1991). Adaptation and evolution in Gallotia lizards from the Canary Islands: age, growth, maturity and longevity. Amphibia-Reptilia12, 81–102. doi: 10.1163/156853891x00356
23
CerdaI. A.PereyraM. E.GarroneM. C.PonceD. A.NavarroT. G.GonzálesR.et al. (2020). A basic guide for sampling and preparation of extant and fossil bones for histological studies. Publicación Electrónica la Asociación Paleontológica Argent.20, 15–28. doi: 10.5710/peapa.07.04.2020.314
24
ChinsamyA.AbdalaF. (2008). Palaeobiological implications of the bone microstructure of South American traversodontids (Therapsida: Cynodontia). S. Afr. J. Sci.104, 225–230.
25
ChinsamyA.HurumJ. H. (2006). Bone microstructure and growth patterns of early mammals. Acta Palaeontol. Pol.51, 325–334.
26
DamianiR.ModestoS.YatesA.NevelingJ. (2003). Earliest evidence of cynodont burrowing. Proc. R. Soc Lond. Ser. B. Biol. Sci.270, 1747–1751. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2427
27
de BuffrénilV.de MuizonC.DumontM.LaurinM.LambertO. (2021b). “ Diversity of bone microstructure in mammals,” in Vertebrate Skeletal Histology and Paleohistology. Eds. de BuffrénilV.de RicqlèsA.ZylberbergL.PadianK. (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 564–614.
28
de BuffrénilV.QuilhacA. (2021). “ Bone tissue types: a brief account of currently used categories,” in Comparative Skeletal Histology and Palaeohistology. Eds. de BuffrénilV.ZylberbergL.PadianK.de RicqlèsA. (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 147–190.
29
de BuffrénilV.QuilhacA.CuboJ. (2021a). “ Accretion rate and histological features of bone,” in Vertebrate Skeletal Histology and Paleohistology. Eds. de BuffrénilV.de RicqlèsA.ZylberbergL.PadianK. (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 221–228.
30
de PinnaM. C. C. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics7, 367–394. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00045.x
31
de RicqlèsA. (1969). Recherches paléohistologiques sur les os longs des Tétrapodes. II. Quelques observations sur la structure des longs des Thériodontes. Annales Paléontologie55, 1–52.
32
de RicqlèsA. (1972). Recherches paléohistologiques sur les os longs des tétrapodes. III. – Titanosuchiens, Dinocéphales et Dicynodontes. Annales Paléontologie58, 17–60.
33
FernandezV.AbdalaF.CarlsonK. J.CookD.RubidgeB. S.YatesA.et al. (2013). Synchrotron reveals Early Triassic odd couple: injured amphibian and aestivating therapsid share burrow. PloS One8, e64978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064978
34
FernerK.SchultzJ. A.ZellerU. (2017). Comparative anatomy of neonates of the three major mammalian groups (monotremes, marsupials, placentals) and implications for the ancestral mammalian neonate morphotype. J. Anat.231, 798–822. doi: 10.1111/joa.12689
35
Francillon-VieillotH.de BuffrénilV. D.CastanetJ.GéraudieJ.MeunierF. J.SireJ. Y.et al. (1990). “ Microstructure and mineralization of vertebrate skeletal tissues,” in Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes and Evolutionary Trends. Ed. CarterJ. G. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), 471–530.
36
FürsichF. T.ShaJ.JiangB.PanY. (2007). High resolution palaeoecological and taphonomic analysis of Early Cretaceous lake biota, western Liaoning (NE-China). Palaeogeogr. Palaeocl. Palaeoecol.253, 434–457. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.06.012
37
GaetanoL. C.AbdalaF.SeoaneF. D.TartaglioneA.SchulzM.OteroA.et al. (2022). A new cynodont from the Upper Triassic Los Colorados Formation (Argentina, South America) reveals a novel paleobiogeographic context for mammalian ancestors. Sci. Rep.12, 6451. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10486-4
38
Garcia MarsàJ. A.AgnolínF. L.NovasF. E. (2022). Comparative bone microstructure of two non-mammaliaform cynodonts from the Late Triassic (Carnian) Chañares formation of Northwestern Argentina. Hist. Biol.36, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/08912963.2022.2149332
39
GarroneM. C.CerdaI. A.TomassiniR. L. (2019). Ontogenetic variability in the limb bones histology of plains vizcacha (Lagostomus maximus, Chinchillidae, Rodentia): implications for life history reconstruction of fossil representatives. Hist. Biol.33, 558–573. doi: 10.1080/08912963.2019.1648450
40
GouJ.DuL.ZhangY.XiongT. (2012). A new distance-weighted k-nearest neighbor classifier. J. Inf. Comput. Sci.9, 1429–1436.
41
GrantT. (2007). Platypus, 3rd Ed ( CSIRO).
42
GuilletteL. J. (1991). The evolution of viviparity in amniote vertebrates: new insights, new questions. J. Zool. Lond.223, 521–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb04783.x
43
GuilletteL. J.HottonN. (1986). “ The evolution of mammalian reproductive characteristics in therapsid reptiles,” in The Ecology and Biology of Mammal-Like Reptiles. Eds. HottonN.MacLeanP. D.RothJ. J.RothE. C. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press), 234–250.
44
HammerØ.HarperD. A. T.RyanP. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electronica4, 1–9. doi: 10.1002/9781119933960
45
HillJ. P. V. (1933). The development of the Monotremata. Part II. The structure of the egg-shell. Trans. Zool. Soc Lond.24, 443–456.
46
HoffmanE. A.RoweT. B. (2018). Jurassic stem-mammal perinates and the origin of mammalian reproduction and growth. Nature561, 104–108. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0441-3
47
JasinoskiS.AbdalaF. (2017). Aggregations and parental care in the Early Triassic basal cynodonts Galesaurus planiceps and Thrinaxodon liorhinus. PeerJ5, e2875. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2875
48
JiangB. Y.HarlowG. E.WohletzK.ZhouZ.MengJ. (2014). New evidence suggests pyroclastic flows are responsible for the remarkable preservation of the Jehol biota. Nat. Commun.5, 3151. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4151
49
JiangB.HeY.ElslerA.HeY.ElslerA.WangS.et al. (2023). Extended embryo retention and viviparity in the first amniotes. Nat. Ecol. Evol.7, 1131–1140. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02074-0
50
Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2019). Evolution of viviparity in mammals: what genomic imprinting tells us about mammalian placental evolution. Reprod. Fert. Dev.31, 1219–1227. doi: 10.1071/rd18127
51
KempT. S. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Mammals (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
52
KerberL.Montoya-SanhuezaG.Roese-MironL.DamkeL. V. S.RezendeL.SoaresM. B.et al. (2025). New insights into the postcranial anatomy of Exaeretodon riograndensis (Eucynodontia: Traversodontidae): phylogenetic implications, body mass, and lifestyle. J. Mammal. Evol.32, 2. doi: 10.1007/s10914-024-09741-4
53
KeverneE. B. (2014). Mammalian viviparity: a complex niche in the evolution of genomic imprinting. Heredity113, 138–144. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2014.8
54
Kielan-JaworowskaZ. (1979). Pelvic structure and nature of reproduction in Multituberculata. Nature277, 402–403. doi: 10.1038/277402a0
55
Kielan-JaworowskaZ.CifelliR.LuoZ.-X. (2004). Mammals From the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure (New York: Columbia University Press).
56
KöhlerM. (2010). “ Fast or slow? The evolution of life history traits associated with insular dwarfing,” in Islands and Evolution. Eds. Pérez-MelladoV.RamónC. ( Institut Menorquí d’Estudis), 261–280.
57
KulikZ. T. (2023). Rare osteohistological evidence of skeletal maturity in the early diverging traversodontid Scalenodon angustifrons, with comments on histological sampling coverage in Cynodontia. J. Vertebra. Paleontol.43, e2249964. doi: 10.1080/02724634.2023.2249964
58
LillegravenJ. A. (1979). “ Reproduction in mesozoic mammals,” in Mesozoic Mammals: The First Two Thirds of Mammalian History. Eds. LillegravenJ. A.Kielan-JaworowskaZ.ClemensW. A. (Oakland: University of California Press), 259–276.
59
LillegravenJ. A.ThompsonS. D.McnabB. K.PattonJ. L. (1987). The origin of eutherian mammals. Biol. J. Linn. Soc32, 281–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00434.x
60
LuoZ.-X. (2007). Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution. Nature450, 1011–1019. doi: 10.1038/nature06277
61
MancusoA. C.BenaventeC.IrmisR. B.MundilR. (2020). Evidence for the Carnian Pluvial Episode in Gondwana: New multiproxy climate records and their bearing on early dinosaur diversification. Gondwana Res.86, 104–125. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2020.05.009
62
MancusoA. C.GaetanoL. C.LeardiJ. M.AbdalaF.ArcucciA. B. (2014). The Chañares Formation: a window to a Middle Triassic tetrapod community. Lethaia47, 244–265. doi: 10.1111/let.12055
63
MarsicanoC. A.IrmisR. B.MancusoA. C.MundilR.ChemaleF. (2016). The precise temporal calibration of dinosaur origins. PNAS113, 509–513. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512541112
64
MeiriS.FeldmanA.SchwarzR.ShineR. (2020). Viviparity does not affect the numbers and sizes of reptile offspring. J. Anim. Ecol.89, 360–369. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13125
65
MengJ. (2014). Mesozoic mammals of China: implications for phylogeny and early evolution of mammals. Natl. Sci. Rev.1, 521–542. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwu070
66
MockeH. B.GaetanoL. C.AbdalaF. (2019). A new species of the carnivorous cynodont Chiniquodon (Cynodontia, Chiniquodontidae) from the Namibian Triassic. J. Vertebra. Paleontol.39, e1754231. doi: 10.1080/02724634.2019.1754231
67
MyhrvoldN. P.BaldridgeE.ChanB.SivamD.FreemanD. L.ErnestS. K. M. (2015). An amniote life-history database to perform comparative analyses with birds, mammals, and reptiles. Ecology96, 3109. doi: 10.1890/15-0846r.1
68
Nacarino-MenesesC.KöhlerM. (2018). Limb bone histology records birth in mammals. PloS One13, e0198511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198511
69
PackardG. C.ElinsonR. P.GavaudJ.GuilletteL. J.LombardiJ.SchindlerJ. F.et al. (1989). “ How are reproductive systems integrated and how has viviparity evolved?,” in Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution in Vertebrates. Eds. WakeD.RothG. (Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd), 281–293.
70
PackardG. C.TracyC. R.RothJ. J. (1977). The physiological ecology of reptilian eggs and embryos, and the evolution of viviparity within the class Reptilia. Biol. Rev.52, 71–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1977.tb01346.x
71
ProndvaiE.KocsisA. T.AbourachidA.AdriaensD.GodefroitP.HuD.-Y.et al. (2022). Radial porosity profiles: a new bone histological method for comparative developmental analysis of diametric limb bone growth. R. Soc Open Sci.9, 211893. doi: 10.1098/rsos.211893
72
RayS.BothaJ.ChinsamyA. (2004). Bone histology and growth patterns of some nonmammalian therapsids. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.24, 634–648. doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2004)024[0634:bhagpo]2.0.co;2
73
RenfreeM. B.HoreT. A.ShawG.GravesJ. A.PaskA. J. (2009). Evolution of genomic imprinting: insights from marsupials and monotremes. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet.10, 241–262. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082908-150026
74
RenfreeM. B.SuzukiS.Kaneko-IshinoT. (2013). The origin and evolution of genomic imprinting and viviparity in mammals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc B.368, e20120151. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0151
75
RomerA. S.LewisA. D. (1973). The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XIX Postcranial materials of the cynodonts Probelesodon and Probainognathus. Breviora407, 1–26.
76
RothchildI. (2003). The yolkless egg and the evolution of eutherian viviparity. Biol. Reprod.68, 337–357. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.102.004531
77
SanderP. M. (2012). Reproduction in early amniotes. Science337, 806–808. doi: 10.1126/science.1224301
78
SchneiderC. A.RasbandW. S.EliceiriK. W. (2012). NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods9, 671–675. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089
79
SharmanG. B. (1970). Reproductive physiology of marsupials. Science167, 1221–1228. doi: 10.1126/science.167.3922.1221
80
SharmanG. B. (1976). “ Evolution of viviparity in mammals,” in The Evolution of Reproduction. Eds. AustinC. R.ShortR. V. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 32–70.
81
SheltonC. D.SanderP. M. (2017). Long bone histology of Ophiacodon reveals the geologically earliest occurrence of fibrolamellar bone in the mammalian stem lineage. C. R. Paleov16, 397–424. doi: 10.1016/j.crpv.2017.02.002
82
SikesR. S.YlönenH. (1998). Considerations of optimal litter size in mammals. Oikos83, 452–465. doi: 10.2307/3546673
83
SmithR. M. H. (1987). Helical burrow casts of therapsid origin from the Beaufort Group (Permian) of South Africa. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.60, 155–169. doi: 10.1016/0031-0182(87)90030-7
84
TunsterS. J.JensenA. B.JohnR. M. (2013). Imprinted genes in mouse placental development and the regulation of fetal energy stores. Reproduction145, R117–R137. doi: 10.1530/rep-12-0511
85
Tyndale-BiscoeH.RenfreeM. (1987). Reproductive Physiology of Marsupials (Monographs on Marsupial Biology) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
86
van ValkenburghB. (1990). “ Skeletal and dental predictors of bodymass in carnivores,” in Mammalian Paleobiology: Estimation and Biological Implications. Eds. DamuthJ.MacFaddenB. J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 181–205.
87
VeigaF. H.Botha-BrinkJ.Bento SoaresM. (2018). Osteohistology of the non-mammaliaform traversodontids Protuberum cabralense and Exaeretodon riograndensis from southern Brazil. Hist. Biol.31, 448–458. doi: 10.1080/08912963.2018.1441292
88
WangX. L.WangY.WangY.-Q. (1998). Stratigraphic sequence and vertebrate-bearing beds of the lower part of the Yixian Formation in Sihetun and neighboring area, western Liaoning, China. Vertebr. PalAsiat.36, 81–101.
89
WrightM. A.CavanaughT. J.PierceS. E. (2024). Volumetric versus element-scaling mass estimation and its application to permo-triassic tetrapods. Integr. Organismal Biol.6, obae034. doi: 10.1093/iob/obae034
90
ZhouZ. (2014). The Jehol Biota, an Early Cretaceous terrestrial Lagerstätte: new discoveries and implications. Natl. Sci. Rev.1, 543–559. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwu055
Summary
Keywords
Cynodontia, evolution, paleohistology, Triassic, viviparity
Citation
Gaetano LC, Miceli Baro MÁ, Cerda IA and Mancuso AC (2026) Early origin of viviparity in the mammalian lineage. Front. Mamm. Sci. 5:1845319. doi: 10.3389/fmamm.2026.1845319
Received
01 April 2026
Revised
20 June 2026
Accepted
22 June 2026
Published
13 August 2026
Corrected
26 August 2026
Volume
5 - 2026
Edited by
Julien Benoit, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Reviewed by
Ricardo Arturo Guerra Fuentes, Federal University of Pará, Brazil
Flavio Pretto, Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Gaetano, Miceli Baro, Cerda and Mancuso.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Leandro Carlos Gaetano, lcgaetano@gl.fcen.uba.ar
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.