Tiny teeth are new mouse species, a rare 'living fossil'

May 24, 2011 by Margaret Allen
Paleontologist Yuri Kimura, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, identified Sicista primus from 17 tiny teeth, whose small size makes them difficult to find. A single molar is about the size of half a grain of rice. The teeth, however, are distinctive among the various genera of rodents known as Dipodidae. Cusps, valleys, ridges and other distinguishing characteristics on the surface of the teeth are identifiable through a microscope. (Credit: Kimura)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Tiny fossil teeth discovered in Inner Mongolia are a new species of birch mouse, indicating that ancestors of the small rodent are much older than previously reported, according to paleontologist Yuri Kimura, Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Fossils of the new species were discovered in sediments that are 17 old, said Kimura, who identified the new species and named it Sicista primus to include the Latin word for "first."

Previously the oldest prehistoric of the modern-day birch mouse was one that inhabited Inner Mongolia 8 million years ago.

Adding 9 million years to the ancestry of the family that includes birch mice and jumping mice distinguishes this , Sicista, as a "living fossil," Kimura said. That places the genus among some of the most unique rodents on earth — those whose ancestry spans 2 to 3 times the average, she said.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Kimura identified Sicista primus from 17 tiny teeth, whose size makes them difficult to find. A single molar is about the size of half a grain of rice. The teeth, however, are distinctive among the various genera of rodents known as Dipodidae. Cusps, valleys, ridges and other distinguishing characteristics on the surface of the teeth are identifiable through a microscope.

"We are very lucky to have these," Kimura said. "Paleontologists usually look for bones, but a mouse is very tiny and its bones are very thin and fragile. The teeth, however, are preserved by enamel. Interestingly, small mammal teeth are very diverse in terms of their structure, so from that we can identify a species."

Kimura reported the new species in the article "The earliest record of birch mice from the Early Miocene Nei Mongol, China" in the scientific journal Naturwissenschaften.

An SMU doctoral student in the Huffington Department of Earth Sciences, Kimura was part of the international team that discovered the fossils during expeditions to Inner Mongolia in 2004, 2005 and 2007.

Microscopic evidence of a living fossil

The new fossils of Sicista primus from the Early Miocene age are also now the earliest known record of Sicista, the birch mouse genus that comprises 13 modern and 7 fossil species, said Kimura. As a result, Sicista now boasts the most ancient of the 326 genera in the largest rodent suborder to which it belongs, Myomorpha. The suborder includes laboratory mice and rats.

"The birch mouse is a rare case of a small mammal genus persisting from the Early Miocene without significant morphological changes," Kimura said in reporting the findings.

(Credit: Kimura)

Rodents, both modern and prehistoric, rank as the most prolific mammals on earth. After the reign of dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, rodents evolved and dispersed worldwide during the Cenozoic, the "Age of Mammals." They comprise about 42 percent of all living mammals. Scientists know now that only 1.5 percent of modern rodent genera, however, go as far back as the Early Miocene or older.

"Diversity within a rodent genus is not unusual, but the long record of the genus Sicista, first recognized at 17 million years ago, is unusual," said Kimura. "The discovery of Early Miocene S. primus reveals that Sicista is fundamental to understanding how a long-lived genus persisted among substantially fast-evolving rodent groups."

Birch mice migrated from Asia to North America

Previously the record for the oldest species of Sicista belonged to an 8 million-year-old species identified in Eurasia, Kimura said.

In identifying the new species, Kimura also reverses the long-held hypothesis that of birch migrated from North America to Asia. That hypothesis has been based on a 14.8 million-year-old specimen from South Dakota, which was identified in 1977 as the separate rodent genus Macrognathomys. Kimura's analysis, however, concludes that Macrognathomys is actually Sicista. For that reason, she concluded, Sicista first inhabited the forests and grasslands of prehistoric Asia and then dispersed to North America via the Bering Land Bridge, Kimura said.

In a comparison of the molars and premolars from Macrognathomys and Sicista primus, Kimura reported finding 12 shared dental characteristics. In addition, phylogenetic analysis to identify evolutionary relationships indicated that both belong to the same genus, Sicista, she said.

Reconnaissance of earlier Central Asiatic Expedition localities yields small mammals

The teeth of Sicista primus were discovered in fine sediments gathered from Gashunyinadege, a fossil locality in the central region of Inner Mongolia.

Gashunyinadege is one of several fossil localities near Tunggur, a fossil site discovered in the 1920s by the Central Asiatic Expedition, which was led by Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History.

Kimura is a member of an international scientific team sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The team's expeditions have been led by paleontologists Qiu Zhuding, IVPP; Wang Xiaoming, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; and Li Qiang, IVPP. Their expeditions retrace important classic localities, as well as prospect new localities.

Kimura and other members of the team discovered the birch mouse fossils by first prospecting Gashunyinadege for small mammal fossils visible to the naked eye. Those fossils indicated the possibility of even smaller mammal fossils, so the team gathered 6,000 kilograms, more than 13,000 pounds, of Early Miocene sediment. Using standing water from recent rains, they washed the sediments repeatedly through continually smaller screens to separate out small fossils. Bags of concentrate containing particles the size of mouse teeth were returned to IVPP laboratories to hunt for fossils with a microscope.

Explore further: Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

More information: www.springer.com/life+sciences/journal/114

Related Stories

Extinct rodent species discovered

Jul 28, 2009

An international team of scientists has discovered an extinct rodent species, based on fossil tooth remains found in Alborache, Valencia. Eomyops noeliae, from the Eomyidae family, represents the oldest fi ...

Ethiopian fossils link ape-men with earlier hominids

Apr 12, 2006

New fossils discovered in the Afar desert of eastern Ethiopia are a missing link between our ape-man ancestors some 3.5 million years ago and more primitive hominids a million years older, according to an international ...

Ancient pygmy sea cow discovered

Dec 14, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The discovery of a Middle Eocene (48.6-37.2 million years ago) sea cow fossil by McGill University professor Karen Samonds has culminated in the naming of a new species. This primitive "dugong" ...

New hoofed mammal fossil found

Aug 09, 2006

A U.S. paleontologist has discovered the fossils of a new hoofed South American mammal that resembled a cross between a dog and a hare.

Recommended for you

Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

21 hours ago

Scientists said Tuesday they hope that radar technology will help them find a century-old Aboriginal burial ground on an Australian island, bringing some closure to the local indigenous population.

Archaeologists excavate NY Colonial battleground

Jul 19, 2014

Archaeologists are excavating an 18th-century battleground in upstate New York that was the site of a desperate stand by Colonial American troops, the flashpoint of an infamous massacre and the location of the era's largest ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Johannes414
1.1 / 5 (8) May 24, 2011
A jump of 9 million years? Obviously the evolutionary assumption is wrong, not the dating.
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011
What 'dating'? There exists previously found fossils that were 8 million years old. These fossils are 17 million. So, not implying anything 'wrong' at all.

Hope that helps!
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (9) May 24, 2011
"The birch mouse is a rare case of a small mammal genus persisting from the Early Miocene without significant morphological changes

These kind of occurrences are now becoming increasingly irritating to the evolutionary model. These kinds of "evolutionary stasis" begs the question: Just how can organisms live this long without any visible or radical changes in their make-up, given that evolution is supposed to be so prolific in it's abilities to bring about wonderful change from one organism to the other.
In fact the mutational changes observed are far, far too slow to account for the rich diversity we find on earth. There's just not enough time to generate this richness given the process. BUT in contradiction - the deterioration of the genes are far, far too FAST for any species to have survived over such a long span of time. This leaves evolutionary theory in a big quandary, in fact an impossible situation.
"Living fossils" are evidence that evolution is impossible.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2011
Good point. If a species can survive millions of years of evolution without being altered or made extinct, despite the the cumulative effect of many mutations, it is a strong indicator that the whole Darwinistic process never took place.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2011
A jump of 9 million years? Obviously the evolutionary assumption is wrong
Nonsense. It simply means the fossils are very rare.

Good point
Kevin has never had a good point about evolution. He is laboring under the delusion that the world is 6000 years old.

If a species can survive millions of years of evolution without being altered
They disprove the Bible but don't disprove evolution.

despite the the cumulative effect of many mutations
Mutations that lower the rate of reproduction don't accumulate.

it is a strong indicator that the whole Darwinistic process never took place
The fossil shows that it did as the species HAS changed over time. It simply is changing slower than the norm for rodents. Which implies that the food it eats hasn't changed much.

Evolution is adaptive. If there isn't anything to adapt to then there isn't going to be a lot change.

Now for you AND Kevin. Where is that physical evidence for the Flood?

Ethelred