Errata for Rankin et al. 2020, Palaeontologica Electronica
Rankin, Aime H., Emry, Robert J., and Asher, Robert J. 2020.
Anatomical sciuromorphy in "protrogomorph" rodents. Palaeontologica
In Figure 4, the numbers for two landmarks (17 and 19) were
mistakenly switched on the image of a skull of Arvicola
amphibius (now corrected on our revised Fig. 4).
In Figures 9 and 10, we have corrected two mistakes. First, the
wireframes on the outside of the axes were reversed; these are now
correctly shown on our revised Figures 9 and 10. Second, the symbol
for Dasyprocta was incorrectly shown as a triangle on
Figures 9 and 10. This has been corrected to a star, reflecting this
taxon's anatomical hystricomorphy (as indicated with a red arrow).
This changes the boundaries of the masseter types slightly. It does
not affect which masseter types overlap with the fossil specimens in
PC3 vs PC4 (Figure 10), but does affect Ischyromys douglassi
in PC1 vs PC2 (Figure 9). Previously, I. douglassi fell
within the myomorphous, hystricomorphous and sciuromorphous
boundaries, but now, it overlaps with just the latter two, requiring
a sentence in the Results section to be changed to the following: "Ischyromys
douglassi (USNM 617532) is centrally placed and nested within
the overlap between the hystricomorphous and sciuromorphous species"
(p. 17, line 3). In the Discussion section, one sentence should be
changed to the following: "When considering the first two principal
components in our study (Figure 9), Ischyromys douglassi
overlaps with the sciuromorphous and hystricomorphous clusters, but
not the protrogomorphous cluster (as defined by extant rodents
only)" (p. 21, line 13).
revised Fig. 4
revised Fig. 9
revised Fig. 10
Our overall conclusion regarding the morphometric analysis, as
stated in our abstract, remains unchanged:
"A geometric morphometric analysis of cranial landmarks suggests
that I. typus resembles extant, anatomically protrogomorphous
rodents, whereas USNM 617532 falls within the range of