According to scientists, retroviruses probably developed in marine vertebrates,
not placental mammals.
Not exact matches
Because so little is known about Gondwanan
mammals, Krause is wary of dismissing Rich's interpretation «just because we don't expect, based on current knowledge of early mammalian evolution on Gondwana, to see a
placental mammal in the Early Cretaceous of Australia.»
«Almost undoubtedly you would need some intermediate land masses to show the presence of
placental mammals and right now we don't have those records,» he admits.
These inconsistencies can be resolved by the simple hypothesis that
placental mammals originated in Gondwanaland,
not Laurasia, says mammalogist Tim Flannery, director of the South Australia Museum in Adelaide.
Marsupials do
not show the spectacular diversity of
placental mammals.
They turned up at sites on landmasses that once belonged to Gondwanaland — sites where they should
not be if
placental mammals arose in the northern landmass of Laurasia.
In the 14 December issue of Science, the researchers report that that
placental mammals all trace their roots to what is now Africa,
not to an ancient northern landmass.
But Stephen O'Brien, an evolutionary biologist with the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland, is
not convinced the work tells the true story of
placental mammals.
For one,
placental mammals do
not neatly divide into the four categories that researchers typically group them into.
According to the new tree, the first
placental mammals appeared around 65 million years ago,
not 100 million years ago or more, as some molecular data have suggested.
More recent genetic analysis —
not yet universally accepted — places bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria, with a diverse bunch of other
placental mammals including whales, dogs and giraffes.