ClueBot NG Report Interface

// Report

Navigation

ID:1874189
User:Arnold In The Shadows 3.0
Article:Cachiyacuy
Diff:
(Replaced content with 'Arnold In The Shadows has vandalized this article.')
Line 1: Line 1:
{{italic title}}{{Automatic taxobox
+
Arnold In The Shadows has vandalized this article.
| name = ''Cachiyacuy''
 
| fossil_range = [[Middle Eocene]], {{fossil_range|41}}
 
| authority = Antoine ''et al.'', [[2012 in paleontology|2012]]
 
| subdivision_ranks = [[Species]]
 
| subdivision =
 
*[[extinction|†]]'''''C. contamanensis''''' <small>Antoine ''et al.'', 2012 ([[Type (zoology)|type]])</small>
 
*†'''''C. kummeli''''' <small>Antoine ''et al.'', 2012</small>
 
}}
 
 
'''''Canaanimys''''' is an [[extinction|extinct]] [[genus]] of [[caviomorph]] known from the [[Loreto Region|Loreto]] of [[Peru]]. It contains two species: the type species ''C. contamanensis'' and ''C. kummeli''.<ref name=Caviomorpha11>{{cite journal |authors=Pierre-Olivier Antoine, Laurent Marivaux, Darin A. Croft, Guillaume Billet, Morgan Ganerød, Carlos Jaramillo, Thomas Martin, Maëva J. Orliac, Julia Tejada, Ali J. Altamirano, Francis Duranthon, Grégory Fanjat, Sonia Rousse and Rodolfo Salas Gismondi |year=2012 |title=Middle Eocene rodents from Peruvian Amazonia reveal the pattern and timing of caviomorph origins and biogeography |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B |volume=279 |issue=1732 |pages=1319–1326 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2011.1732 }}</ref>
 
 
== Description ==
 
All ''Cachiyacuy'' specimens were collected in the CTA-27 Locality (or Maquía locality), from the uppermost part of the [[Yahuarango Formation]], dating to the latest [[Lutetian]] stage of the late [[Middle Eocene]], about 41 [[mya (unit)|million years ago]]. The type species ''C. contamanensis'' is known from the [[holotype]] [[Museum of Natural History, Lima|MUSM]]&nbsp;1871, a right second [[Molar (tooth)|molar]] and from some referred teeth including MUSM&nbsp;1870, MUSM&nbsp;1872, MUSM&nbsp;1873, MUSM&nbsp;1874, MUSM&nbsp;1875, MUSM&nbsp;1876, MUSM&nbsp;1877, MUSM&nbsp;1878, MUSM&nbsp;1879 and MUSM&nbsp;1880. Its body mass estimated at 80–120 [[gram]]. The second species ''Cachiyacuy kummeli'' is known from the [[holotype]] MUSM&nbsp;1882, a left first [[Molar (tooth)|molar]] and from some referred teeth including MUSM&nbsp;1881, MUSM&nbsp;1883, MUSM&nbsp;1885, MUSM&nbsp;1886, MUSM&nbsp;1887 and MUSM&nbsp;1888. It was a tiny rodent, approximately 30% smaller than ''C. contamanensis'' as its body mass estimated at 30–40&nbsp;gram. A [[cladistic]] analysis found ''Cachiyacuy'' to be monophyletic and one of the [[basal (phylogenetics)|basalmost]] and the oldest known caviomorph (the other being ''[[Canaanimys]]'' from the same locality).<ref name=Caviomorpha11/>
 
 
== Etymology ==
 
''Cachiyacuy'' was first named by Pierre-Olivier Antoine, Laurent Marivaux, Darin A. Croft, Guillaume Billet, Morgan Ganerød, Carlos Jaramillo, Thomas Martin, Maëva J. Orliac, Julia Tejada, Ali J. Altamirano, Francis Duranthon, Grégory Fanjat,
 
Sonia Rousse and Rodolfo Salas Gismondi in [[2012 in paleontology|2012]] and the [[type species]] is ''Cachiyacuy contamanensis''. The [[name of a biological genus|generic name]] is derived from ''Cachiyacu'', name of a local River, and ''cuy'', [[Quechua languages|Quechua]] for "guinea pig". The [[specific name (zoology)|specific name]] of the type species is named after the geographical provenance of the specimens, close to the city of [[Contamana]]. The specific name of ''C. kummeli'' honors the [[geologist]] Bernhard {{Proper name|Kummel}} for describing extensively for the first time the Cachiyacu section in the 1940s.<ref name=Caviomorpha11/>
 
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{portal|Paleontology}}
 
 
[[Category:Fossil taxa described in 2012]]
 
[[Category:Hystricognath rodents]]
 
[[Category:Prehistoric mammals of South America]]
 
[[Category:Eocene rodents]]
 
 
 
{{paleo-rodent-stub}}
 
Reason:ANN scored at 0.951801
Your username:
Reverted:Yes
Comment
(optional):

Note: Comments are completely optional. You do not have to justify your edit.
If this is a false positive, then you're right, and the bot is wrong - you don't need to explain why.