Dendrocygna sp.

Nascimento, Rafael S. & Silveira, Luís Fábio, 2024, Fossil and subfossil birds of Brazil, Zoologia (e 23079) 41, pp. 1-234 : 96-101

268. Dendrocygna sp.

Quaternary – MG

Dendrocycna sp. 1 v. 2 (vel D. viduata et sp. alia; vel sp. una, non D. viduata ) – Winge 1887: 19.

Dendrocygna viduata [in part] – Goeldi 1894: 603. Dendrocygna spec. [in part] – Goeldi 1894: 603.

Dendrocygna sp. (“cfr. viduata und andere Arten”) – Lambrecht 1933: 740.

Dendrocygna viduata – Brodkorb 1964: 237.

Dendrocygna viduata – Cuello 1988: 34.

Dendrocygna sp. – Nascimento and Silveira 2020: 490.

Winge (1887) reported the distal end of a tibiotarsus and a tarsometatarsus from Lapa da Escrivânia XI, the latter slightly thinner than in Dendrocygna viduata , and a humerus and a carpometacarpus from Lapa da Lagoa do Sumidouro, which correspond well to D. viduata . From the latter locality, there is also a femur that possibly fits here, but only bones of a mounted specimen (lacking the femora) were available for comparison. He noted it is not clear whether the bones from Lapa da Lagoa do Sumidouro are of D. viduata , and those from Lapa da Escrivânia XI are of a related species, or both materials belong to this related species.

Anatinae Leach Neochen Oberholser

269. † Neochen pugil (Winge)

Quaternary – MG

Figs 19–21, 35A

Type locality: Depicted material from Lapa da Escrivânia V ( Hansen 2012) .

Etymology: pugil, Latin for “boxer” ( Lambrecht 1933: 377).

“ Chauna eller Palamedea ” [in part] – Reinhardt 1881: 145. “ Chauna or Palamedea ” [in part] – Reinhardt 1882: 325. Chenalopex pugil n. sp., affinis jubatae (Spix) sed multo major [new species] – Winge 1887: 19–22, figs 1–6.

Chenalopex pugil – Goeldi 1894: 603.

Alopochen pugil – Rothschild 1907: ix.

Chenalopex pugil [in part] – Lambrecht 1921: 11.

Chenalopex pugil [in part] – Lambrecht 1933: 376, 377, 390, 741, 880, fig. 194A.

Neochen pugil – Howard 1964: 281–282, pl. VI: C, D [May 1964]. Neochen pugil – Brodkorb 1964: 216 [26 June 1964].

“Fighting shelduck, Neochen pugil ” – HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Fisher 1970: 193.

Neochen pugil [ Chenalopex pugil ] – Mones 1986: 81–82. Neochen pugil – Cuello 1988: 10.

Neochen pugil – Alvarenga 1993a: 62.

Neochen pugil – Alvarenga 1997: 123.

“ Neochen pugil ( Winge, 1887) .—Greater Orinoco Sheldgoose” – Livezey 1997: 475.

Neochen pugil – Alvarenga 1998: 60.

Chenalopex pugil [original name] – Hansen 2012: 98–99, fig. 41A, 41B.

Neochen pugil [in part] – Nascimento and Silveira 2020: 490, fig. 3.

Neochen pugil – Agnolín et al. 2024: 249, fig. 3H, F–G.

Winge (1887) described this species as Chenalopex pugil based on remains from three localities: several bones from Lapa da Escrivânia V, belonging to at least three males, more bones from Lapa da Escrivânia XI, mainly from a female, and some fragments associated with a male from Lapa dos Tatus. It constitutes the first species of fossil bird (and dinosaur) named for Brazil .

The material is represented by the cervical vertebrae, coracoid (not listed, but depicted and mentioned in the description), a rib, a fragment of the anterior part of the sternum, part of the synsacrum and pelvis, proximal and distal ends of the humerus, proximal end of the ulna, proximal and distal ends of the radius, carpometacarpus, first phalanx of the major digit of the wing, femur, distal end of the tibiotarsus, tarsometatarsus, and first phalanx of digit II and first phalanx of digit III of the foot. No elements were designed as a type ( Howard 1964). However, a right coracoid (ZMUC 12115), the proximal end of a left humerus (ZMUC 12017), a right carpometacarpus (ZMUC 12044), a left tibiotarsus lacking the proximal end (ZMUC 12122), and a left tarsometatarsus (ZMUC 12084) associated with the male sex from Lapa da Escrivânia V were depicted. This material was listed as the type by Brodkorb (1964) and Hansen (2012).

Winge found it quite similar to Neochen jubata , but larger and different in some characters (e.g., in the cervical vertebrae, coracoid, sternum, humerus, and radius) and well-differentiated from Alopochen aegyptiaca , Plectropterus gambensis , Chloephaga melanoptera , and Chloephaga picta . There are two sets of bones, one of larger size and one smaller, which he believed belonged to males and females, respectively, and correspond almost precisely to the differences observed between two specimens of N. jubata that were available for comparison—a taxidermied specimen with no defined sex, but probably a male, and a disarticulated skeleton of a young female. The carpometacarpus and tarsometatarsus are proportionally longer, and the femur, pedal phalanges, and coracoid are proportionally slightly shorter than in N. jubata . Winge noted that, if both sexes of the two species could be appropriately compared, the differences observed in the radius and cervical vertebrae, and perhaps even in the sternum, could disappear. As in N. jubata , there is a well-developed spur in the alular metacarpal, probably used for fighting, and it likely inspired its specific name. Unregistered fragments in Lund’s collection belonging to this species were attributed to Chauna or Anhima by Reinhardt (1881), but no anhimid remains are known among the material from the Lagoa Santa region.

Winge proposed that this species might still be found alive in remote areas in the inner regions of Brazil, near the southern tributaries of the Amazon River. Nevertheless, so far there has been no record of its existence in historical times. Lambrecht (1933: 377) mistakenly commented that “Reinhardt collected the same from the Brazilian Campos”.

Andrews (1897: 350) made a parallel between the two living species of “ Chenalopex ”, C. aegyptiaca and C. jubata , where each is represented in its respective range by a much larger pleistocenic form, Centrornis majori and Chenalopex pugil , respectively. He noted they differ in the shape of the legs but have an almost identical wing structure, where the similarities between the carpometacarpi are a “remarkable example of parallel modification”, but not in a way that suggests a generic relationship between the two fossil taxa ( Howard 1964).

The first mentions of the combination Neochen pugil are those by Howard (May 1964 [29]) and Brodkorb (26 June 1964). Howard noted that the “ Chenalopex ” species are recognized as Neochen in South America and Alopochen in Africa. Winge [29] According to a review by J.J.(in McEvey [1968]).

himself found the placement of Chenalopex jubata and C. pugil in the same genus as Chenalopex aegyptiaca debatable. Due to the differences in size and structure, Andrews (1897) suggested classifying C. pugil in a new genus apart from C. jubata . Rothschild (1907) listed it under Alopochen , possibly following the classification of C. jubata and C. aegyptiaca in this new genus by Stejneger (1885). The name Neochen was only proposed for the then Alopochen jubata by Oberholser in 1918, without a diagnosis for the described fossil species of South America, Chenalopex pugil and the Argentinean Chenalopex debilis (now Neochen debilis ), of middle pleistocenic age ( AgnolÍn 2006a). A third fossil species, Neochen barbadiana , was described in 1965 from the late Pleistocene of Barbados ( Brodkorb 1965). AgnolÍn et al. (2024) described the new species Chloephaga dabbenei (middle Pleistocene of Bajo San José, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina) and found similarities between it and N. pugil . They noted it is not improbable that the latter belongs to the genus Chloephaga .

Chenalopex pugil – Lydekker 1891: 98–99.

Chenalopex pugil [in part] – Lambrecht 1921: 11.

Chenalopex pugil [in part] – Lambrecht 1933: 377.

Neochen pugil [in part] – Nascimento and Silveira 2020: 490.

Lydekker (1891) associated with this species a right carpometacarpus (NHMUK PV OR 18906) described as “imperfect” from the British Museum (Natural History) collection. The institution acquired this bone in 1848 as part of the Claussen Collection, and it comes from a cave in the same region as Lund’s finds. Lambrecht (1933) erroneously listed a tarsometatarsus present in that collection.