4.7 Article

Reappraisal of the extinction of Canariomys bravoi, the giant rat from Tenerife (Canary Islands)

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 22-27

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.04.013

关键词

Aboriginal settlement; Canariomys bravoi; Insular rodent; Quaternary extinctions; Radiocarbon dating

资金

  1. DGICYT Research Project [CGL2012-38089]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All the Quaternary endemic rodents of the Canary Islands are currently extinct. The Lava Mouse Malpaisomys insularis inhabited the easternmost islands, whereas the giant rats Canariomys bravoi and Canariomys tamarani lived in the central islands of Tenerife and Gran Canaria, respectively. Bones of C. bravoi have appeared in archaeological sites together with shellfish and butchery remains. Traditionally, they have been considered as an evidence of the sporadic consumption of C. bravoi by the aboriginal people, in some instances as recently as the time of the first European contact (14th century AD). Accordingly, the extinction of C. bravoi has been linked to the European colonization of Tenerife. The plausibility of this extinction date has been explored through new radiocarbon dates obtained on selected C. bravoi bones and through a reappraisal of the published dates. Our analysis allowed us to establish an earlier last documented occurrence age for C. bravoi, prior to the third century cal BC, much earlier than previously assumed. The analysis of formerly published C-14 dates of archaeological remains from Tenerife shows that samples with confidence intervals (95.54%) that are older or overlap with the last documented record of C. bravoi were performed on materials with large sources of error (such as wood, charcoal or bulk ash-sediments). Conversely, the new radiocarbon dates and analyses presented herein are in agreement with the occurrence of an earlier rapid extinction linked to the first human presence on the island. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据