Odocoileus lucasi
Encyclopedia
Morejohn and Dailey published the analysis of the osteological anatomy and morphology of a practically complete skeleton of a Pleistocene
adult male, Odocoileus lucasi (Hay 1927) along with other collections labeled as O. lucasi. Moreover, for their 54- page analysis they visited most collections of samples identified as Navahoceros as well as other species for a comparative analysis (Cervalces scotti, Alces alces, Rangifer tarandus, Odocoileus hemionus, O. virginianus, Hippocamelus antisensis, H. bisulcus, Mazama americana, Pudu mephistophiles, P. puda, Ozotoceros bezoarticus, Blastocerus dichotomus), located in 27 different institutions worldwide.
They also dissected and analyzed fresh materials of Alces, Cervus, Mazama, Odocoileus hemionus and O. virginianus, Ozotoceros, Pudu , and Rangifer.
The main conclusion from the analysis by Morejohn and Dailey (2004) are:
- they consider Navahoceros to be a nomen nudum.
- all revised bones which were labeled as Navahoceros were shown to belong to Odocoileus lucasi. This includes exhibition-mounts which were assembled from dissociated bones.
Although Navahoceros entered the scene based on a very weak analysis which is impossible to verify (Kurten 1975), the best current evidence based on an extensive comparative study shows that Navahoceros was an invalid construct and pertains to Odocoileus lucasi Hay 1927 (Morejohn and Dailey 2004). Subsequent publications referring to Kurten’s Navahoceros simply cited his interpretations without questioning its validity. It is recommended that any future discussion, or reference to Navahoceros, be done explicitly in relation to the known information on Odocoileus lucasi.
Pleistocene
The Pleistocene is the epoch from 2,588,000 to 11,700 years BP that spans the world's recent period of repeated glaciations. The name pleistocene is derived from the Greek and ....
adult male, Odocoileus lucasi (Hay 1927) along with other collections labeled as O. lucasi. Moreover, for their 54- page analysis they visited most collections of samples identified as Navahoceros as well as other species for a comparative analysis (Cervalces scotti, Alces alces, Rangifer tarandus, Odocoileus hemionus, O. virginianus, Hippocamelus antisensis, H. bisulcus, Mazama americana, Pudu mephistophiles, P. puda, Ozotoceros bezoarticus, Blastocerus dichotomus), located in 27 different institutions worldwide.
They also dissected and analyzed fresh materials of Alces, Cervus, Mazama, Odocoileus hemionus and O. virginianus, Ozotoceros, Pudu , and Rangifer.
The main conclusion from the analysis by Morejohn and Dailey (2004) are:
- they consider Navahoceros to be a nomen nudum.
- all revised bones which were labeled as Navahoceros were shown to belong to Odocoileus lucasi. This includes exhibition-mounts which were assembled from dissociated bones.
Although Navahoceros entered the scene based on a very weak analysis which is impossible to verify (Kurten 1975), the best current evidence based on an extensive comparative study shows that Navahoceros was an invalid construct and pertains to Odocoileus lucasi Hay 1927 (Morejohn and Dailey 2004). Subsequent publications referring to Kurten’s Navahoceros simply cited his interpretations without questioning its validity. It is recommended that any future discussion, or reference to Navahoceros, be done explicitly in relation to the known information on Odocoileus lucasi.