Antifer 

Fig 1. An artist’s interpretation of Antifer ultra. Painting used with permission from the artist Francisco Hueichaleo

Fig 1. An artist’s interpretation of Antifer ultra. Painting used with permission from the artist Francisco Hueichaleo

Taxonomy

Antifer is a genus consisting of three typically listed species, A. ultra, A. ensenadensis and A. niemeyeri. The latter is widely considered a junior synonym of A. ultra (1) (2). The entire genus has been called a subjective synonym of Blastocerus, the Marsh deer (5), though this does not seem widely accepted. Antifer niemeyeri was originally proposed based on Antlers from two sites, Taguatagua and Quereo, without a designated holotype. Later studies have overturned this, however, and only A. ultra and ensenadensis are now considered valid (1).

The genus Antifer was named by Ameghino, F. (1889) after the character of Captain Antifer from the Jules Verne novel of the same name (10).

Distribution

The range of A. ultra was centered in Argentina, Uruguay, and the southern reaches of Brazil, with an extension across the Andes and into central Chile (1). A. ensenadensis was originally recorded only in the Ensenadan age (1.2-0.8 Ma)(6), from which it derives its name, but is now suspected to have ranged into the Holocene alongside A. ultra, based on material from a site in Corrientes (1)(11).

Fig. 2. The estimated natural distribution of Antifer ultra in red. Data was obtained from Phylacine (7). Fossil sites of Antifer ultra and Antifer ensenadensis from the Late Pleistocene (Lujanian) are shown based on data from various authors (1, 9, 12). Samples of habitat within the estimated range are also displayed.

Fig. 2. The estimated natural distribution of Antifer ultra in red. Data was obtained from Phylacine (7). Fossil sites of Antifer ultra and Antifer ensenadensis from the Late Pleistocene (Lujanian) are shown based on data from various authors (1, 9, 12). Samples of habitat within the estimated range are also displayed.

Morphology and ecology

Antifer ultra was an adaptable animal, ranging from hot and humid regions of the Argentinian Mesopotamia to the dry and cool Pampas and northern Patagonia (1). The species occasionally occurred in the same general regions as another cervid, the still-extant Hippocamelus bisulcus, or South Andean Deer, but where the latter is associated primarily with cold forests and periglacial scrub, A. ultra had a broader climatic range, and was heavily associated with open habitats. The two are not found at the same sites and appear to have exercised allopatric niche-separation. The dates during which Antifer is found in Chile correlate with warm periods of reduced precipitation and arboreal pollen (3), furthering the image of an open-landscape ecology.

Findings from the Late-Pleistocene to Early-Holocene Quebrada Quereo Formation show that Antifer shared its habitat with large herbivores such as horses (Amerhippus), the extinct llama-relative Palaeolama, ground-sloths of the family Mylodontidae, as well as gomphotheres (8). Of predators, Antifer co-existed with members of the genus Dusicyon, most likely the recently extinct Dusicyon avus, of which the even more recently extinct Warrah, or Falkland Islands wolf, was an insular form. Also present in Patagonic Chile at this time was the jaguar (Panthera onca), an animal not known from the region in historical times (8). Findings from the Chuí Formation in southern Brazil paint a picture of an even richer faunal assemblage. Here is evidence of Antifer co-existing with animals including but not limited to the other extinct deer Morenelaphus, the Toxodont Toxodon platensis, proboscidean Notiomastodon platensis, the ground-sloths Megatherium americanum and Eremotherium laurillardi and predators such as the large canid Protocyon troglodites and even sabertooths of the genus Smilodon (9).

Morphologically, substantial ontological variation occurs within the individual species, rendering exact identification difficult at times (4). Members of the genus were large, likely the largest Cervids in South America (4), with A. ultra as the larger of the two accepted species (1). Fontoura et al. (2020) estimates the body-mass of the animal at 200 kg, comparable to that of the Eurasian red deer (Cervus elaphus). Nevertheless, the two differed in antler-morphology and proportions. Antifer ensenadensis was characterised by wider and more robust antlers, positioned laterally on the skull (4), whilst A. ultra, as noted, was the larger of the species.

Fig 3. Antler of Antifer ultra. Sagittal view of specimen from Nivel Quereo I. Diagram adapted by Tristan Søbye Rapp from Labarca, R. and Alcaraz, M. 2011.

Fig 3. Antler of Antifer ultra. Sagittal view of specimen from Nivel Quereo I. Diagram adapted by Tristan Søbye Rapp from Labarca, R. and Alcaraz, M. 2011.

Back to Species List

Citations

  1.       Labarca, R. and Alcaraz, M. (2011). Presence of Antifer ultra Ameghino (=Antifer niemeyeri Casamiquela) in the late Pleistocene-early Holocene of central Chile (30-35°S). Andean Geology.  38. 1.

  2.       Valli, A., (2018.) Late Pleistocene Deer in the Region of the National Park “Serra da Capivara” (Piauí, Brazil). Quaternary, 1(1). 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/quat1010004

  3.       Heusser, C. (1983). Quaternary Pollen Record from Laguna de Tagua Tagua, Chile. Science. 219. 1429-1432. DOI: 10.1126/science.219.4591.1429

  4.       Fontoura, E., Ferreira, J., Bubadué, J., Ribeiro, A. and Kerber, L. (2020). 3D models related to the publication: Virtual brain endocast of Antifer (Mammalia: Cervidae), an extinct large cervid from South America. MorphoMuseuM, 6(4). 121. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.21243

  5.       Vrba, E. and Schaller, G., 2000. Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives: Fossil Record, Behavioral Ecology, Systematics and Conservation. New York: Yale University Press, pp.55-56.

  6.       Duarte, J. and González, S. (2010). Neotropical cervidology. Funep/IUCN. p.4.

  7.       Faurby, S., Pedersen, R. Ø., Davis, M., Schowanek, S. D., Jarvie, S., Antonelli, A., & Svenning, J.C. (2020). PHYLACINE 1.2.1: An update to the Phylogenetic Atlas of Mammal Macroecology. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3690867

  8.       Rafael O. Labarca, Patricio G. López. (2006). The Late Pleistocene mammal record of Quebrada Quereo Formation: biogeography, biostratigraphy and paleoclimatic inferences. Mastozoologia Neotropical. 13(1). 89-101.

  9.       Lopes, R., Dillenburg, S., Savian, J. and Pereira, J. (2021). The Santa Vitória Alloformation: an update on a Pleistocene fossil-rich unit in Southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Geology. 51(1). DOI: 10.1590/2317-4889202120200065

  10.   Ameghino, F. (1889). Contribucion al conocimiento de los mamiferos fosiles de la República Argentina. Obra escrita bajo los auspicios de la Academia nacional de ciencias de la República Argentina para ser presentada á la Exposicion universal de Paris

  11. Alcaraz, M.A., Carlini, A.A.. (2003). Los cérvidos (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) de las Formaciones Toropí y Yupoí (Pleistoceno medio-tardío) de la provincia de Corrientes, Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste Comunicaciones Cientificas y Tecnológicas.

  12. Kerber, L., Oliveira, E.V.. (2008). Fósseis de vertebrados da Formação Touro Passo (Pleistoceno Superior), Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil: Atualização dos dados e novas contribuições. Gaea J. Geosc. 4, 49–64.