Back to all available

New materials of the rare fossil mustelid Cernictis hesperus (Carnivora, Mammalia) from the Pinole Tuff genotype locality in California

paleontology
taxonomy
zoology

Abstract

The Neogene fossil record of predatory mammals indicates periodic dispersals across the Beringian land bridge. Among the documented immigrant species in the weasel family (Mustelidae), Cernictis hesperus is among the most poorly known genotype species because of the highly fragmentary holotype. Here I report a new specimen representing the species from its type locality in the Pinole Tuff Formation, California. Associated left and right dentaries show that C. hesperus possesses a first premolar, unlike all other known species of the genus. Furthermore, incisor alveoli indicate the presence of a full incisor toothrow that is similarly crowded compared to the cheek teeth. These new morphological characteristics improve the diagnosis of the genus and species for the first time in nearly a century since the initial publication on the taxon.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].