*Manuscript

Click here to view linked References

Evolutionary and biogeographic history of weasel-like carnivorans (Musteloidea)

Jun J. Sato a, Mieczyslaw Wolsan b,*, Francisco J. Prevosti c, Guillermo D‘Elía d, Colleen Begg e,

Keith Begg e, Tetsuji Hosoda f, Kevin L. Campbell g, Hitoshi Suzuki h

a
Laboratory of Animal Cell Technology, Faculty of Life Science and Technology, Fukuyama

University, Higashimura-cho, Aza, Sanzo, 985, Fukuyama 729-0292, Japan

b
Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa,
Poland
c
División Mastozoología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”,

Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Av. Angel Gallardo 470, C1405DJR

Buenos Aires, Argentina

d
Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Evolutivas, Universidad Austral de Chile, Campus Isla Teja

s/n, casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile

e
Postnet Suite 230, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa
f
Taikyu High School, 1985 Yuasa-cho, Arida-gun, Wakayama 643-0004, Japan
g
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T

2N2
h
Laboratory of Ecology and Genetics, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science,

Hokkaido University, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan

* Corresponding author. Fax: +48 22 6296302.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Wolsan).

Author contributions: M.W. and J.J.S. conceived and designed the study; G.D., F.J.P., C.B.,

K.B., K.L.C., T.H., and H.S. provided samples; J.J.S., M.W., and F.J.P. collected the data; J.J.S.
and F.J.P. analyzed the data; M.W. drafted the manuscript; and M.W., K.L.C., J.J.S., F.J.P., and

G.D. contributed to the final manuscript writing and revisions.

 2

Address for editorial correspondence:

Mieczyslaw Wolsan, Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64,

00-679 Warszawa, Poland; Phone: +48 22 6293221, Fax: +48 22 6296302, E-mail:

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

We analyzed a concatenated (8492 bp) nuclear–mitochondrial DNA data set from 44 musteloids

(including the first genetic data for Lyncodon patagonicus) with parsimony, maximum
likelihood, and Bayesian methods of phylogenetic and biogeographic inference and two

Bayesian methods of chronological inference. Here we show that Musteloidea emerged

approximately 32.4–30.9 million years ago (MYA) in Asia, shortly after the greenhouse–

icehouse global climate shift at the Eocene–Oligocene transition. During their Oligocene

radiation, which proceeded wholly or mostly in Asia, musteloids diversified into four primary

divisions: the Mephitidae lineage separated first, succeeded by Ailuridae and the divergence of

the Procyonidae and Mustelidae lineages. Mustelidae arose approximately 16.1 MYA within the

Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum, and extensively diversified in the Miocene, mostly in Asia.

The early offshoots of this radiation largely evolved into badger and marten ecological niches

(Taxidiinae, Melinae, Mellivorinae, Guloninae, and Helictidinae), whereas the later divergences

have adapted to other niches including those of weasels, polecats, minks, and otters (Mustelinae,

Ictonychinae, and Lutrinae). Notably, and contrary to traditional beliefs, the morphological

adaptations of badgers, martens, weasels, polecats, and minks each evolved independently more

than once within Mustelidae. Ictonychinae (which is most closely related to Lutrinae) arose

approximately 9.5–8.9 MYA, most likely in Asia, where it diverged into the Old World

Ictonychini (Vormela, Poecilictis, Ictonyx, and Poecilogale) and New World Lyncodontini

(Lyncodon and Galictis) lineages. Ictonychini presumably entered Africa during the Messinian
Salinity Crisis (at the Miocene–Pliocene transition), which interposed the origins of this clade

(approximately 6.5–6.0 MYA) and its African Poecilictis–Ictonyx–Poecilogale subclade

 3

(approximately 4.8–4.5 MYA). Lyncodontini originated approximately 2.9–2.6 MYA at the

Pliocene–Pleistocene transition in South America, slightly after the emergence of the

Panamanian land bridge that provided for the Great American Biotic Interchange. As the genera

Martes and Ictonyx (as currently circumscribed) are paraphyletic with respect to the genera Gulo

and Poecilogale, respectively, we propose that Pekania and Poecilictis be treated as valid genera

and that ―Martes‖ pennanti and ―Ictonyx‖ libyca, respectively, be assigned to these genera.

Keywords: Biogeography; Carnivora; Divergence times; Evolution; Mustelidae; Phylogeny

1. Introduction
The weasel-like carnivorans (Musteloidea) include weasels, otters, martens, badgers, and

relatives (Mustelidae); raccoons and their kin (Procyonidae); the red panda (Ailuridae); and

skunks and stink badgers (Mephitidae; e.g., Delisle and Strobeck, 2005; Flynn et al., 2005;

Fulton and Strobeck, 2006, 2007; Sato et al., 2006, 2009; Árnason et al., 2007; Yonezawa et al.,

2007). With its 84 living species classified into 33 genera (Wozencraft, 2005; the Japanese otter,

Lutra nippon, is considered extinct [Sasaki, 2009]), Musteloidea encompasses ~30% of the

extant carnivoran species diversity, which makes this clade the most species-rich superfamily

within the order Carnivora. Musteloids are widespread in Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas, and

also occur in New Zealand following human-mediated introductions in the late nineteenth

century. Musteloids have adapted to a variety of climatic and biotic conditions, being found

today in a broad and diverse spectrum of habitats spanning from tropical rainforest to arctic

tundra, and from desert to inland waterways and coastal sea waters. They exhibit diverse

locomotor and dietary habits, with not only terrestrial forms but also largely arboreal, fossorial,

and aquatic specialists, with diets ranging from strictly carnivorous to vegetarian (see

Macdonald, 2006). All this renders Musteloidea a fascinating and challenging taxon for
evolutionary and biogeographic investigations.

The most species-rich, ecomorphologically diverse, and widely distributed musteloid family
 4

is Mustelidae (e.g., Wolsan, 2012), which makes this family particularly well-suited for

addressing evolutionary and biogeographic questions. Within Mustelidae, recent multilocus

DNA studies (Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Koepfli et al., 2008;

Wolsan and Sato, 2010) have provided sound evidence for a close phylogenetic relationship

between some Old World (mostly African) polecats and weasels (Ictonyx, Poecilogale, and

Vormela) and the New World (South and southern North American) grisons (Galictis). Given the

large distance separating the current distributions of these two groups of mustelids, their

evolutionary and biogeographic history is especially intriguing. A conspicuous feature shared by

these mustelids is a contrastingly colored pelage. For most of these species, defensive behaviors

with threat displays and excretion of pungent musk from anal glands have been reported,

suggesting that the primary adaptive value of their striking coloration lies in warning potential

predators (Pocock, 1909; Koepfli et al., 2008). To refer to a clade uniting both groups, Fulton

and Strobeck (2006; followed by Koepfli et al., 2008) adopted the subfamilial name Galictinae

Reig, 1956, whereas Wolsan and Sato (2010) applied Ictonychinae Pocock, 1922 because it has

nomenclatural priority (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999, Article

23). The latter name is therefore used here.

Extensive research during recent decades (Schmidt-Kittler, 1981; Wolsan, 1993; Ledje and

Árnason, 1996; Dragoo and Honeycutt, 1997; Flynn and Nedbal, 1998; Bininda-Emonds et al.,

1999; Flynn et al., 2000, 2005; Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Sato et al., 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009;

Fulton and Strobeck, 2006, 2007; Árnason et al., 2007; Koepfli et al., 2007, 2008; Yonezawa et

al., 2007; Harding and Smith, 2009; Eizirik et al., 2010; Wolsan and Sato, 2010; and others) has

considerably extended and refined knowledge on the evolutionary history of Musteloidea. The

monophyly of this taxon has been demonstrated conclusively and many internal phylogenetic

relationships have likewise been convincingly resolved. The degree of consensus among

published estimates of divergence times for particular lineages has also improved recently.
Nevertheless, there are important aspects of musteloid phylogeny and its chronology that still

await clarification, such as the pattern and timing of early mustelid diversification and the
 5

phylogenetic placement of the Patagonian weasel (Lyncodon patagonicus).

In contrast to the evolutionary history, the biogeographic history of Musteloidea has not been

extensively investigated and is not well understood. A comprehensive study of Mustelidae

(Koepfli et al., 2008) provided insight into this family‘s historical biogeography, but the power

of inference in that study was limited by the fact that the method used for ancestral-area

reconstruction did not allow polymorphous characters, and therefore species distributed on two

or more continents were assigned to one of them on potentially arbitrary grounds.

To shed more light on the pattern and timing of the evolutionary and biogeographic
diversification of Musteloidea, we first prepared a dataset of concatenated nuclear DNA (nDNA)

and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from 44 musteloids and two outgroup species, each

8492 bp in aligned length. We then applied parsimony, maximum likelihood (ML), and Bayesian

methods of phylogenetic and biogeographic inference and two different Bayesian methods of

chronological inference. Special consideration has been given to the initial radiation of

Musteloidea and the diversification of Mustelidae with particular reference to Ictonychinae.

Specifically, we report the first genetic data for Lyncodon patagonicus and show that this species

is an ictonychine. In addition, we provide the first rigorous analytical ancestral-area

reconstruction of Musteloidea and a complete species-level reconstruction of the evolutionary

and biogeographic history of the extant Ictonychinae.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Sampling

The nucleotide sequences obtained were from 12 protein-coding exons and four noncoding

introns of nine nDNA genes and from a protein-coding mtDNA gene (Table 1). The sequence

data were either newly obtained (DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank accessions AB285330–AB285332,

AB305635, and AB564020–AB564112) or derived from previous studies (Supplementary Tables

S1 and S2). Altogether, 45 wild species and one domestic form (Mustela furo) of the arctoid
 6

Carnivora were sampled; the sampling included 44 members of the ingroup Musteloidea plus a

pinniped (Phoca largha) and an ursid (Melursus ursinus) as a collective outgroup

(Supplementary Table S1). Selection of this outgroup was based on multiple lines of evidence

indicating that Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, walrus) and Ursidae (bears) are the closest extant

relatives of Musteloidea (e.g., Wolsan, 1993; Wyss and Flynn, 1993; Delisle and Strobeck, 2005;

Flynn et al., 2005; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Sato et al., 2006, 2009; Árnason et al., 2007;

Rybczynski et al., 2009; Schröder et al., 2009; Eizirik et al., 2010).

2.2. Laboratory techniques

Total genomic DNA was extracted from tissue samples using a standard phenol–chloroform

procedure (Sambrook and Russell, 2001). The PCR amplification of DNA from Mellivora

capensis was preceded by whole-genome amplification with the illustra GenomiPhi V2 DNA

Amplification Kit (GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, UK). All PCR reactions were conducted in an

automated thermal cycler (model PC 808, Astec, Fukuoka, Japan) with the following conditions:

a 3-min denaturation period at 94 °C followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s,

annealing at 50 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 90 s; this was followed by an extension

period at 72 °C for 10 min. Each 50-μl reaction mixture contained 10× Ex Taq buffer, 2 mM

MgCl2, 0.2 mM dNTP mix, 1.25 U of Ex Taq (Hot Start version) polymerase (Takara, Shiga,

Japan), 0.8 μM of each primer, and 0.1–0.5 μg of genomic DNA. Amplification was performed

through nonnested (for CHRNA1, FES, GHR, and RHO) or nested (for APOB, BRCA1, MT-CYB,

RAG1, RBP3, and VWF) PCR reactions, using two new (vWF-F281-mustelids [5′-

TGGTGCCCCCCACGGAAGGC-3′] and vWF-R1432-mustelids [5′-

TCTCCAGCTCCTGCGGGTCGG-3′] and 37 published primers (Supplementary Table S3). A

1-μl aliquot of each reaction mixture after the first nested PCR was used as a template for the

second nested PCR. Sequencing was carried out with the Big Dye Terminator (version 3.1)
Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Tokyo, Japan). The raw sequence data were

generated on an ABI3130 automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Tokyo, Japan).

 7

2.3. Phylogenetic analyses

2.3.1. Sequence alignment and supermatrix assembly

Sequences were aligned via multiple alignment in DNASIS Pro version 2.6 (Hitachi Software

Engineering, Tokyo, Japan) following the similarity criterion (Simmons, 2004). The total

number of pairwise differences between compared sequences with regard to base substitutions

and gaps (insertions and deletions, all constrained to be multiples of three bases in protein-
coding sequences) was minimized (Zurawski and Clegg, 1987). Equal costs were assumed for

gap opening and extension vs. substitutions, but lower costs for substitutions in the cases of ties.

For each tie between a transition and a transversion, the transition was selected.

To assess the amount of phylogenetic incongruence among the gene genealogies, we

compared ML single-gene tree topologies and found that they were largely congruent in terms of

>70%-bootstrap-supported clades (Supplementary Fig. S1). We then assembled the aligned

sequence data in a phylogenetic matrix containing 390,632 character-data cells (46 taxa × 8492

characters), of which 25,822 (6.6%) were coded as missing data. The missing data corresponded

to the unavailable sequence data and inferred gaps. All phylogenetic analyses were conducted on

this supermatrix (available under study accession No. S11504 in TreeBASE;

http://www.treebase.org/, last accessed January 19, 2011). We note that coding gaps alternatively

as fifth character states for each base position regardless of the gap length (e.g., Giribet and

Wheeler, 1999) under parsimony did not alter the topologies of the inferred trees except that

Mustela lutreola was paired with M. furo (with a bootstrap frequency of 91%).

2.3.2. Parsimony analysis

The parsimony phylogenetic analysis was performed in TNT version 1.1 (Goloboff et al.,
2008). Trees were obtained from heuristic searches with 103 random-addition sequence replicates

and tree bisection–reconnection (TBR) branch swapping supplemented by a TBR round on the
 8

resulting shortest-length trees. Additional searches were conducted using the sectorial-searches,

tree-drifting, and tree-fusing algorithms (Goloboff, 1999). Support for the hypothesized clades

was quantified with nonparametric bootstrap frequencies (Felsenstein, 1985) as well as

symmetric-resampling frequencies and symmetric-resampling frequency differences (Goloboff et

al., 2003). All indices were calculated on the basis of 2.5 × 103 pseudoreplicates, each consisting

of a heuristic search using 102 random-addition sequence replicates and TBR branch swapping.

2.3.3. Maximum-likelihood analysis

The ML phylogenetic analysis was executed in GARLI version 0.96 (Zwickl, 2006). The

best-fit model of base substitutions (GTR + I + Γ; Lanave et al., 1984) was determined with the

Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973) in Modeltest version 3.7 (Posada and

Crandall, 1998). Using this model, heuristic searches were performed via five independent runs

of the genetic algorithm, each with an ML stepwise-addition starting tree and 2 × 104

generations. Nonparametric bootstrap frequencies were computed from 102 pseudoreplicates of

an as-is addition sequence with TBR branch swapping.

2.3.4. Bayesian analysis

The Bayesian phylogenetic analysis was conducted in MrBayes version 3.1.2 (Ronquist and

Huelsenbeck, 2003) with the prset ratepr=variable option in effect (Marshall et al., 2006). The

best-fit models of base substitution were chosen independently for each gene partition using AIC

in MrModeltest version 2.2 (Nylander, 2004). The following models were adopted: GTR + Γ

(Lanave et al., 1984) for the APOB, BRCA1, FES, GHR, and RHO partitions; GTR + I + Γ for the

MT-CYB, RBP3, and VWF partitions; K80 + Γ (Kimura, 1980) for the CHRNA1 partition; and

SYM + I + Γ (Zharkikh, 1994) for the RAG1 partition. Model parameters were estimated as part

of the analysis. Gene partitions were unlinked. Two independent runs of Metropolis-coupled
MCMC (Markov-chain Monte Carlo) were conducted. Each run consisted of four Markov

chains, one cold and three incrementally heated, which started from a random tree. The chains
 9

were run for 3 × 107 generations and sampled every 102 generations. The first 1.5 × 105 sampled

trees were discarded as burn-in. Inspection of the parameter files generated in both runs with

Tracer version 1.5 (Drummond and Rambaut, 2007) showed that log likelihood (ln L) scores had

converged on a stationary distribution within the burn-in period. Potential scale reduction factors

for the monitored parameters were near 1.0.

2.4. Chronological analyses

2.4.1. Multidivtime analysis

The Multidivtime analysis was performed using the Bayesian relaxed-clock method first

proposed by Thorne et al. (1998) and further developed in Kishino et al. (2001) and Thorne and

Kishino (2002). We first inferred the optimal tree topology for each of the 10 gene partitions

(Table 1) separately by running ML phylogenetic analyses under the model and its parameters

assessed with AIC in Modeltest 3.7 and using heuristic searches with as-is addition sequence and

TBR branch swapping in PAUP* version 4.0b10 (Swofford, 2002). The ML estimates of base

frequencies, the transition-to-transversion rate ratio, and the shape parameter of the discrete

gamma distribution of rates among sites for each gene partition were next computed under the

F84 + Γ model (Felsenstein and Churchill, 1996) with Baseml (within PAML version 4.2; Yang,

2007). The output files from Baseml were then transformed with Paml2modelinf (contained in

Multidistribute version 9/25/03; Thorne, 2003) into the input file for Estbranches (also within

Multidistribute), which in turn was employed to calculate the ML of branch lengths and to

generate their variance–covariance matrix for each gene partition. Finally, the output from

Estbranches was used to approximate the posterior distributions of substitution rates and

divergence times in Multidivtime (within Multidistribute) using MCMC. The Markov chains

were run for 3 × 106 generations. Parameters were sampled every 102 generations after a burn-in
of 7.5 × 105 generations. Three independent runs of Multidivtime were performed. The strict

consensus of the two 50% majority-rule consensus trees obtained from both runs of the Bayesian
 10

(MrBayes) phylogenetic analysis was used in Estbranches and Multidivtime. The fossil-based

minimum clade ages were applied as minimum-bound priors in Multidivtime.

2.4.2. BEAST analysis

The BEAST analysis was conducted with the Bayesian uncorrelated lognormal relaxed-clock

model implemented in BEAST version 1.6.1 (Drummond et al., 2006; Drummond and Rambaut,

2007). We first generated the BEAST input file with BEAUti version 1.6.1 (Drummond and

Rambaut, 2007). Each of the 10 gene partitions (Table 1) was allowed to have its own
independent base-substitution model and parameters. The best-fit models were inferred using

AIC in Modeltest 3.7. When an optimal model was not available in BEAUti 1.6.1, we selected a

similar but more complex near-optimal model (Huelsenbeck and Rannala, 2004). The models

eventually used were the same as in the Bayesian (MrBayes) phylogenetic analysis except that

TrNef + Γ (Tamura and Nei, 1993) instead of K80 + Γ was assigned to the CHRNA1 partition.

The Yule process of speciation was applied as a tree prior. The fossil calibrating information was

incorporated in the form of lognormal prior age distributions in line with the recommendations of

Ho (2007) and Ho and Phillips (2009). Each of the fossil-based minimum clade ages was set as

the zero offset of the lognormal distribution to represent the minimum bound. The means and

standard deviations of the lognormal distributions were set to 1 million years each. We next

performed five independent MCMC runs of 107 generations each in BEAST 1.6.1. Each run was

sampled every 103 generations. We then inspected each BEAST log file with Tracer 1.5 to

confirm if the parameters converged to the stationary distribution and were sufficiently sampled.

After removing the initial 25% of samples from each run as burn-in, the post-burn-in samples

from the five runs were combined. All effective sample size values for parameters of the time to

the most recent common ancestor exceeded 200, with the exception of two clades (Musteloidea

and Mephitidae), for which these values were 144 and 132, respectively.

2.4.3. Fossil constraints

 11

The estimates of minimum divergence times inferred from the fossil record were applied to

constrain the ages of three clades. Two of these clades are major crown clades within

Ictonychinae. One is the Lyncodon–Galictis clade (which we refer to as Lyncodontini, using a

tribal name derived from the subfamilial name Lyncodontinae coined by Pocock, 1922) and the

other is the Ictonyx–Poecilogale–Vormela clade (hereafter referred to as Ictonychini). The third

constrained clade is a deep-level clade within Musteloidea (the crown clade of procyonids and

mustelids).

The constraint put on the age of Lyncodontini derived from a comparison of ages assigned to
the first (lowest stratigraphic) occurrences of Lyncodon and Galictis. The geologically oldest

fossil known of Lyncodon is a skull of †L. bosei described in Pascual (1958). The skull comes

from a site in the Ensenada Formation, Argentina (Soibelzon et al., 2008a). This site is correlated

with the geomagnetic polarity chron C1r1n and thus corresponds to an age within a range of

1.07–0.99 million years ago (MYA; Soibelzon et al., 2008b). In turn, the geologically oldest

species of Galictis is †G. sorgentinii (Cione and Tonni, 1995) known from a partial mandible

described in Reig (1957). This fossil is referred to the Vorohuean, a subage of the Marplatan

South American Land Mammal Age (Cione and Tonni, 1995). Woodburne et al. (2006) correlate

the Vorohuean to ~3.0–2.4 MYA. Accordingly, we adopted 2.4 MYA as the minimum age of

Lyncodontini.

The age of Ictonychini was constrained on the basis of the first occurrence of this clade

represented by the record of †Baranogale helbingi from Podlesice, Poland (Kowalski, 1959;

Petter, 1987; Wolsan, 1989; Spassov, 2001). This fossil site is the reference locality of the

European Neogene mammal chronological unit MN 14 (de Bruijn et al., 1992). The unit itself is

regarded in Agustí et al. (2001) as a biostratigraphic zone that spans 4.9–4.2 MYA. We therefore

assumed a minimum age of 4.2 MYA for Ictonychini.

The constraint imposed on the age of the crown clade of procyonids and mustelids was
assessed based on geological dating of the first occurrences of †Pseudobassaris riggsi and

†Plesictis plesictis (Wolsan, 1993 and references therein). We considered †Pseudobassaris

 12

riggsi the geologically oldest known stem procyonid (after Wolsan, 1993; Wolsan and Lange-

Badré, 1996; Sato et al., 2009) and treated †Plesictis plesictis as the oldest known stem mustelid

(following Wolsan, 1999; Sato et al., 2003, 2009). The first occurrences of these species date to

ages within intervals of 30.3–27.6 MYA and 24.7–23.3 MYA, respectively (Sato et al., 2009 and

references therein), which yielded a minimum of 27.6 MYA for the procyonid–mustelid clade.

It is of note that a recent total-evidence analysis (Finarelli, 2008) recovered †Pseudobassaris

as a stem arctoid, and †Plesictis as sister to Phoca vitulina (Pinnipedia). The morphological

character partition and taxon sampling used in this analysis, however, can account for these
unusual placements. For instance, several basicranial characters whose apomorphic states

suggest procyonid or procyonid–mustelid affinities of †Pseudobassaris were either not included

(character 9 of Wolsan, 1993) or coded as plesiomorphic (characters 17, 24, 26, and 30 of

Finarelli, 2008), although these characters are indeed invariably or variably apomorphic in this

genus (Wolsan, 1993; Wolsan and Lange-Badré, 1996; Sato et al., 2003). If these characters

were coded with the apomorphic states, †Pseudobassaris would likely be removed to a position

within the procyonid–mustelid clade. The only representatives of the total clade (crown clade

plus its paraphyletic stem) of procyonids sampled by Finarelli (2008) in addition to

†Pseudobassaris were two extant species (Procyon lotor and Potos flavus) whose morphological

(particularly dental) characteristics are modified in many respects from those of the early

members of the total clade. Inclusion of other stem or early crown procyonids (e.g., †Broiliana

nobilis; Wolsan, 1993) could suggest more links between †Pseudobassaris and the extant

procyonids.

We also note that Wang et al. (2005) recovered †Pseudobassaris as a stem mustelid, rather

than a stem procyonid (Wolsan, 1993; Sato et al., 2009). Importantly, however, even though the

inferred placements of †Pseudobassaris differ between these studies, both placements are in

agreement with our use of †Pseudobassaris riggsi to calibrate the procyonid–mustelid clade.
To examine how the age of †Pseudobassaris riggsi corresponds to an independent age

estimate for the procyonid–mustelid divergence, we ran an additional BEAST analysis applying
 13

the same procedure, models, and settings as in the original BEAST analysis except that the age

of the procyonid–mustelid divergence was constrained with a minimum of 23.3 MYA based on

the first occurrence of the stem mustelid †Plesictis plesictis and, additionally, the age of the

musteloid–pinniped divergence was constrained with a minimum of 33.7 MYA based on the first

occurrence of the stem musteloid †Mustelavus priscus (Sato et al., 2009 and references therein).

The results of this analysis (Supplementary Table S4) are highly congruent to those obtained

with our original BEAST and Multidivtime analyses. The 95% credibility interval for the age of

the procyonid–mustelid divergence estimated in this additional analysis (30.3–23.4 MYA)

encompasses the geological age of †Pseudobassaris riggsi (which lies between 30.3 and 27.6

MYA; Sato et al., 2009 and references therein). We note that the 95% credibility intervals for the

age of the procyonid–mustelid divergence obtained in two recent dating analyses using other

DNA and taxon samplings and other fossil calibrations (Eizirik et al., 2010) also embrace the age

of †P. riggsi.

2.5. Biogeographic analyses

2.5.1. Distributional dataset

All of the 45 sampled wild arctoid species (Supplementary Table S1) were scored for

presence or absence in each of five discrete areas corresponding to continents (Africa, Asia,

Europe, North America, and South America) according to the recent geographic distribution of

these species (Wozencraft, 2005). Multiple areas were assigned to species occurring in two or

more continents. Recent human-mediated range expansions were not taken into consideration.

Mustela furo was treated as of unknown distribution. This distributional dataset (Fig. 1) was used

in all biogeographic analyses.

Admittedly, our biogeographic analyses have limitations related to the fact that the
distributional dataset does not include extinct musteloids and because reconstructions of

ancestral areas based on extant species alone may differ from those that also contain extinct
 14

species. Indeed, ancestral-area analyses on extant taxa that do not include extinct taxa can

potentially be inaccurate. However, analyses that include extinct taxa can also lead to inaccurate

results because of the incompleteness of the fossil record (Lieberman, 2002).

2.5.2. Parsimony analysis

The parsimony biogeographic analysis was carried out with Sankoff optimization (Sankoff

and Rousseau, 1975) in TNT 1.1. The costs of symmetric transitions between continents were

weighted on the basis of current and former post-Eocene (Asian–North American and African–
European) intercontinental land connections as follows: one step, Africa–Asia, Africa–Europe,

Asia–Europe, Asia–North America, and North America–South America; two steps, Africa–North

America, Asia–South America, and Europe–North America; and three steps, Africa–South

America, and Europe–South America. The distributional dataset was first optimized on either of

the two alternative equally most-parsimonious trees obtained from the parsimony phylogenetic

analysis, and then an ancestral-area mapping common to both trees was generated by selecting

the common mapping option. Where the ancestral area for a clade was subject to more than one

interpretation, the concerned continents were identified using the recons option.

2.5.3. Maximum-likelihood analysis

The ML biogeographic analysis was conducted under the dispersal–extinction–cladogenesis

model in Lagrange version 2.0.1 (Ree and Smith, 2008). The present and former post-Eocene

land links among the five continents were taken into account by scaling the symmetric dispersal

rates between Africa and Asia, Africa and Europe, Asia and Europe, Asia and North America,

and North America and South America to 1.0; those between Africa and North America, Asia

and South America, and Europe and North America to 0.5; and those between Africa and South

America and between Europe and South America to 0.33. The topology and branch lengths with
the highest ln L score among the five runs of the ML phylogenetic analysis were applied.
 15

2.5.4. Bayesian analysis

The Bayesian biogeographic analysis was performed using a Bayesian model-averaging

approach implemented in the BayesMultistate program contained in the BayesTraits (version

1.0) package (Pagel and Meade, 2006, 2007). We employed two sets of trees, which were

analyzed separately. Both sets consisted of the last 5 × 104 post-burn-in trees sampled in a

different run of the Bayesian (MrBayes) phylogenetic analysis. Ancestral areas for clades with a

posterior probability of <1.0 were estimated by applying the most-recent-common-ancestor

method of Pagel et al. (2004). Preliminary analyses were completed to adjust the magnitude of
the rate-coefficient proposals (ratedev parameter) until the acceptance rates of proposed changes

achieved 20–40%. We then conducted five independent reversible-jump MCMC runs for both

set of trees. Sampling was conducted every 102 generations, with chains being propagated for 107

generations and the first 5 × 104 sampled trees discarded. Stasis of ln L was confirmed with

Tracer 1.5. The posterior probabilities resulting from the runs that showed the highest harmonic

mean ln L for either tree set were averaged for each clade.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic inference

The parsimony (Fig. 1), ML (Fig. 2), and Bayesian (Fig. 3) phylogenetic analyses resulted in

trees with largely congruent topologies, with the majority of clades being consistently

corroborated with strong support. Minor differences concerned the placements of Mellivora

capensis (ML vs. parsimony and Bayesian analyses), Gulo gulo relative to Martes flavigula

(parsimony vs. ML and Bayesian analyses), and Mustela sibirica relative to Mustela itatsi

(Bayesian vs. parsimony and ML analyses). Additionally, a parsimony trichotomy was recovered

within Mustela and a Bayesian tetratomy within Martes (both of these were uniformly resolved
in the other two analyses).

All phylogenetic analyses (Figs. 1–3) strongly supported a clade composed of Mydaus
 16

javanensis and Mephitis mephitis (Mephitidae, clade 46) as the earliest offshoot of Musteloidea,

followed by Ailurus fulgens (Ailuridae) sister to the common clade of raccoons (Procyon;

Procyonidae, clade 43) and Mustelidae (clade 41). Within Mustelidae, Taxidea taxus

(Taxidiinae) was recovered as sister to the rest of the family. Arctonyx collaris and the species of

Meles are closely related (Melinae, clade 39). The martens (Martes) and Gulo gulo are more

crownward and also closely related (Guloninae, clade 28). The genus Martes is paraphyletic

relative to Gulo, with Martes pennanti strongly supported as sister to all other sampled

gulonines. Still more crownward, Melogale moschata (Helictidinae) is sister to the robustly-
supported clade containing the weasels, polecats, and minks of Mustela and Neovison

(Mustelinae, clade 13) and a clade composed of otters (Lutrinae, clade 8) and the weasels,

polecats, and grisons of Ictonychinae (clade 3). A sister relation between Ictonychinae and

Lutrinae (as well as all relationships within both subfamilies) was well supported by each of the

phylogenetic analyses (Figs. 1–3). Ictonychinae was divided into a clade consisting of the

grisons (Galictis) and Lyncodon patagonicus (Lyncodontini, clade 1) and a clade composed of

Vormela peregusna, Poecilogale albinucha, and two species of Ictonyx (Ictonychini, clade 4).

Ictonyx striatus and Poecilogale albinucha are more closely related to each other than either is to

Ictonyx libyca, rendering Ictonyx a paraphyletic genus.

3.2. Chronological inference

The age estimates resulting from the Multidivtime and BEAST chronological analyses were

highly correlated (r2 = 0.99), with close correspondence found for most divergences (Fig. 3). The

initial musteloid radiation involving the separation into lineages leading to Mephitidae,

Ailuridae, Procyonidae, and Mustelidae (divergences 45, 44, and 42) was estimated to have

occurred early in the Oligocene. The origin of Mephitidae (divergence 46) was dated to the Early

(Multidivtime analysis) or early Middle (BEAST analysis) Miocene. In turn, the emergence of
Mustelidae (divergence 41) dates back to near the Early/Middle Miocene boundary. The lineages

for all of the mustelid subfamilies had their origin in the Miocene. The inception of Ictonychinae
 17

(divergence 3) was dated to the early Late Miocene, and that of Ictonychini (divergence 4) to the

twilight of the Miocene. The radiation of African Ictonychini (divergences 5 and 6) was

estimated to have transpired in the Pliocene, whereas that of Lyncodontini (divergences 1 and 2)

was placed at the Pliocene–Pleistocene transition.

3.3. Biogeographic inference

The parsimony, ML, and Bayesian ancestral-area reconstructions were largely concordant and

indicated that much of the present-day diversity of musteloids originated in Asia (Table 2). All
biogeographic analyses consistently pointed to Asia as the centre of origin for Musteloidea and

also for 17 of its subclades. Only eight clades were unequivocally of non-Asian ancestry. These

are Procyon and Lontra (both reconstructed in all biogeographic analyses to be of North

American origin), Lyncodontini and Galictis (consistently of South American origin), clades 5

and 6 within Ictonychini (consistently of African origin), and clades 21 and 22 within Mustela

(consistently of European origin). Ancestral areas estimated for 11 clades differed among the

three analytical methods, but those favoring Asia prevailed in nine cases.

4. Discussion

4.1. Initial musteloid radiation

4.1.1. Branching order

Deep-level phylogenetic relationships within Musteloidea (particularly the relative position of

Ailuridae and Mephitidae) have, until recently, remained unresolved and the cause of contention

or ambiguity (e.g., Agnarsson et al., 2010; Morlo and Peigné, 2010; Salesa et al., 2011). That

Mephitidae and Ailuridae are successively more closely related to a clade containing
Procyonidae and Mustelidae was first suggested by Sato et al. (2006) and later, independently,

by Fulton and Strobeck (2006) based on evidence from nDNA sequences. Robust support for this
 18

hypothesis (congruent across parsimony and probabilistic methods of phylogenetic inference and

diverse statistical tests of topology) was first reported by Sato et al. (2009) on the basis of a

larger set of nDNA sequences. Eizirik et al. (2010) verified this result using still more nDNA

data. The present study further reinforces this conclusion with consistently strong support from

diverse analyses conducted on a combined nDNA and mtDNA data set (Figs. 1–3). We note that

the strongest overall support for this hypothesis comes from Sato et al. (2009) and the present

work, which may be due to the fact that these two studies have employed the most complete

musteloid sampling.

4.1.2. Timing and duration

The initial radiation of musteloids was estimated to have occurred during a ~2.5–4-million-

year time interval in the Oligocene (~32.4–28.4 MYA with Multidivtime analysis and ~30.9–

28.4 MYA with BEAST analysis; Fig. 3). Most previous analyses applying a multilocus

molecular dating approach have inferred similar interval lengths (~3–4.5 million years) and

similar age estimates for the involved divergences (31.4–28.4 MYA, Sato et al., 2009; ~33.1–

29.0 MYA, Yonezawa et al., 2007; 33.8–29.4 MYA and 32.0–27.4 MYA, Eizirik et al., 2010).

Conversely, Árnason et al.‘s (2007) analysis suggested a markedly older age for the origin of

Musteloidea and consequently a longer interval of 6.5 million years (~35.5–29.0 MYA) for the

initial musteloid radiation.

How do these molecular age estimates compare with the fossil record? The first appearance of

the earliest known musteloid (†Mustelictis olivieri; Sato et al., 2009) dates to 32.8–30.9 MYA,

the earliest known stem procyonid (†Pseudobassaris riggsi; Wolsan, 1993; Wolsan and Lange-

Badré, 1996; Sato et al., 2009) to 30.3–27.6 MYA, the earliest known ailurid (†Amphictis

ambigua; Ginsburg, 1999; Wolsan, 1999) to 25.6–24.0 MYA, the earliest known stem mustelid

(†Plesictis plesictis; Wolsan, 1999; Sato et al., 2003, 2009) to 24.7–23.3 MYA, and the earliest
known total-clade mephitid (†Miomephitis pilgrimi; Wolsan, 1993; Ginsburg, 1999) to 20.3–17.6

MYA (Sato et al., 2009 and references therein). Comparisons of these geological age ranges with
 19

our molecular estimates of divergence times yield estimates for the lengths of ghost lineages

(gaps in the fossil record). These fall within ranges of 10.6–14.8 million years for the total clade

of mephitids, 4.7–6.5 million years for Ailuridae (total clade), 3.7–5.1 million years for the total

clade of mustelids, 0–1.5 million years for Musteloidea (crown clade), and 0–0.75 million years

for the total clade of procyonids.

4.1.3. Geographic location

Our biogeographic analyses consistently indicated an Asian origin of Musteloidea. This

agrees with fossil evidence that also points to an Asian centre of early musteloid diversification

(Sato et al., 2009). Fossil data suggest that musteloids initially entered Europe as early as 32.8–

30.9 MYA (†Mustelictis) followed by several waves of musteloid dispersal from Asia to Europe

during the Oligocene and later, which are exemplified by such genera as †Pseudobassaris,

†Amphictis, †Plesictis, †Bathygale, †Franconictis, †Stromeriella, †Angustictis, †Broiliana,

†Paragale, and †Plesiogale (reviewed in Wolsan, 1993). The first documented wave of

musteloid immigration to North America is provided by †Zodiolestes (reviewed in Baskin, 1998)

and occurred as late as ~23 MYA in the Early Miocene (Tedford et al., 2004). We note that the

endemic North American †Mustelavus, †Promartes, †Oligobunis, and †Megalictis (including

†Aelurocyon and †Paroligobunis; Hunt and Skolnick, 1996), all considered musteloids in Baskin

(1998), represent the paraphyletic musteloid stem rather than the crown clade Musteloidea (Sato

et al., 2009).

4.2. Timing and location of mustelid origin

The origin of Mustelidae was dated here to ~16.1 MYA (during the Early–Middle Miocene

transition). This estimate is close to the nDNA-based ages of 16.3 MYA (Sato et al., 2009) and

15.6 MYA (Eizirik et al., 2010), though the latter authors also obtained a younger date of 13.0
MYA using a second dating method. Other estimates of this divergence event inferred by the

application of multilocus molecular dating are considerably older and include ~20.2 MYA based
 20

on mitochondrial nucleotide (Yonezawa et al., 2007) and amino acid (Árnason et al., 2007)

sequences, and 26.2–20.9 MYA based on combined nDNA and mtDNA sequences (Koepfli et

al., 2008). We note that †Plesictis plesictis, whose approximate geological age (24 MYA) was

used by Koepfli et al. (2008) to constrain the age of Mustelidae in their chronological analyses, is

a stem rather than crown mustelid (Sato et al., 2009), which may account for older dates

recovered in their analyses.

Whether Asia or North America is the ancestral continent for Mustelidae remains to be

conclusively resolved. Although our Bayesian biogeographic analysis supported Asia, the
parsimony analysis yielded an equivocal result, while the ML analysis favored an area involving

both continents. Previous ML analyses similarly resulted in equivocal ancestral-area

reconstructions (Koepfli et al., 2008).

4.3. Establishment and interrelationships of mustelid subfamilies

Recent hypotheses based on anatomical data (Bryant et al., 1993) or on a combination of

anatomical and mtDNA data or mtDNA data alone (Dragoo and Honeycutt, 1997; Marmi et al.,

2004) have postulated a mellivorine affinity for Taxidea taxus (Taxidiinae) or have placed this

species in a sister relationship to Meles alone or together with Arctonyx collaris (Melinae). Our

results reject these hypotheses and instead strongly support Taxidiinae as sister to all other

mustelids, corroborating in this respect the phylogenetic reconstruction inferred in Koepfli et al.

(2008).

Our findings also concur with recent observations (e.g., Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Fulton and

Strobeck, 2006; Koepfli et al., 2008; Sato et al., 2009; Wolsan and Sato, 2010) that Meles and

Arctonyx are sister taxa within Melinae, and that the extant species of Martes and Gulo are

closely related within Guloninae. Although the monophylies of Melinae and Guloninae are well

grounded, the relative placement of both subfamilies remains uncertain. Our phylogenetic
analyses placed Melinae outside a clade containing Guloninae and more-crownward mustelids

(Figs. 1–3). Support for this relationship was, however, relatively weak. Most of the former
 21

multilocus molecular analyses have recovered the same phylogenetic arrangement between these

two subfamilies (Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Sato et al., 2003, 2006, 2009; Marmi et al., 2004;

Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Sato, 2006; Árnason et al., 2007; Yonezawa et al., 2007; Schröder et

al., 2009; Eizirik et al., 2010; Ki et al., 2010; Wolsan and Sato, 2010; Yamada and Masuda,

2010), whereas others placed Guloninae outside a clade containing Melinae and the more-

crownward mustelids (Sato et al., 2006; Yu and Zhang, 2006; Yu et al., 2008), hypothesized a

sister relation between Melinae and Guloninae (Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Yu et al., 2004;

Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Koepfli et al., 2008; Wolsan and Sato, 2010), or failed to resolve the
relationship between the two subfamilies (Sato et al., 2004; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Yu et al.,

2008).

The phylogenetic placement of Mellivora capensis (Mellivorinae) also remains contentious

and its resolution awaits further research. Notably, a position sister to all mustelids except

Taxidiinae, hypothesized by Koepfli et al. (2008), was not supported. Our analyses instead

weakly recovered Mellivorinae as sister to either Melinae (parsimony and Bayesian inference) or

all mustelids except Melinae and Taxidiinae (ML), albeit with only weak support in each case.

The latter relationship was also weakly supported in a Bayesian analysis of MT-CYB sequences

(Agnarsson et al., 2010).

The ferret–badgers (Melogale, Helictidinae) were strongly recovered as sister to a clade

composed of Mustelinae, Ictonychinae, and Lutrinae (Figs. 1–3). This observation agrees with

the results of earlier phylogenetic investigations exploring sequence data from multiple DNA

loci (Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Sato et al., 2004, 2006, 2009; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Sato,

2006; Koepfli et al., 2008; Wolsan and Sato, 2010), but contradicts a hypothesis based on

anatomical characters, which instead proposes Melogale as sister to all other mustelids and

mephitids (Bryant et al., 1993).

The monophyly of the mustelines, ictonychines, and lutrines was also strongly supported,
corroborating results obtained in other molecular studies (Dragoo and Honeycutt, 1997; Koepfli

and Wayne, 2003; Flynn et al., 2005; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Rozhnov et al., 2006; Koepfli
 22

et al., 2008; Harding and Smith, 2009; Agnarsson et al., 2010; Eizirik et al., 2010; Wolsan and

Sato, 2010), which conflict with competing (largely morphology-based) hypotheses (e.g., Bryant

et al., 1993; Baryshnikov and Abramov, 1998; Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999). Previous molecular

investigations have suggested that ictonychines are most closely related to either mustelines

(Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Rozhnov et al., 2006; Harding and Smith, 2009; Agnarsson et al.,

2010) or lutrines (Dragoo and Honeycutt, 1997; Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Fulton and Strobeck,

2006; Eizirik et al., 2010; Wolsan and Sato, 2010), or are sister to a hypothesized clade

composed of mustelines and lutrines (Dragoo and Honeycutt, 1997; Flynn et al., 2005; Koepfli et
al., 2008). Support for these phylogenetic associations was, however, not very strong. In contrast,

our analyses provided relatively strong support for a close relationship between Ictonychinae and

Lutrinae to the exclusion of Mustelinae.

4.4. Timing and location of ictonychine diversification

Most of the time estimates within Ictonychinae obtained by Koepfli et al. (2008) are younger

than our estimates and fall within the ranges of 8.2–7.9 MYA (vs. our ~9.5–8.9 MYA) for the

origin of Ictonychinae, 4.6–4.0 MYA (vs. our ~6.5–6.0 MYA) for the rise of Ictonychini, 3.5–3.0

MYA (vs. our ~4.8–4.5 MYA) for the beginning of the crown clade of African Ictonychini, and

2.7–2.2 MYA (vs. our ~4.3–3.4 MYA) for the separation of the lineages for Ictonyx striatus and

Poecilogale albinucha. Conversely, the previous estimates of 3.0–2.8 MYA (Koepfli et al.,

2008) and 5.6 and 6.6 MYA (Harding and Smith, 2009) for the split between Galictis cuja and

G. vittata (the latter study based on MT-CYB data alone) are older than our estimates (~2.0 and

~1.7 MYA).

Although our results agree with those of Koepfli et al. (2008) that Ictonychinae originated in

the Old World rather than in the New World, it remains unresolved where specifically this event

occurred. Koepfli et al.‘s (2008) ML biogeographic analyses supported Eurasia, whereas our
analyses favored either Asia (parsimony and ML) or Africa (Bayesian inference). Where

Ictonychini arose is also uncertain. Our analyses favored Asia (parsimony) or Africa (Bayesian
 23

inference) or suggested that the ancestral range extended onto both continents (ML). The results

of Koepfli et al. (2008) are also equivocal in this regard. As the origins of Ictonychinae and

Ictonychini date back to the Late Miocene (Fig. 3), the presence of ictonychines in the Late

Miocene fossil record in Eurasia (e.g., †―Baranogale‖ adroveri; Petter, 1964, 1987) and North

America (e.g., †Cernictis hesperus; Baskin, 1998), and the fact that no pre-Pliocene ictonychine

has been reported from Africa (McKenna and Bell, 1997; de Bonis, 2008) suggest Asia, rather

than Africa, as the ancestral area for both clades. It should be noted, however, that the African

fossil record has been examined less extensively than those of Eurasia and North America, and
that the Miocene African mustelids are not well known.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Early Musteloidea

Our phylogenetic results indicate that early crown musteloids diversified into four primary

divisions: the Mephitidae lineage separated first, succeeded by Ailuridae and finally by the

divergence of the Procyonidae and Mustelidae lineages. Previous investigations have either

supported this hypothesis (Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Sato et al., 2006, 2009; Eizirik et al.,

2010) or generated alternative hypotheses (reviewed in Sato et al. [2009] and Morlo and Peigné

[2010]). These alternative hypotheses, however, have received, at most, weak support or

conflicted with each other across the applied methods of analysis. We therefore reject these

alternative hypotheses.

There are two competing hypotheses regarding the centre of origin for the crown clade

Musteloidea. One proposes Asia (Sato et al., 2009), whereas the other favors North America

(Yonezawa et al., 2007). Our biogeographic results reject the latter hypothesis and corroborate

the Asian origin, which also agrees with the fossil record (see section 4.1.3).
The results of our chronological analyses suggest that the inception (~32.4–30.9 MYA) and

initial radiation of Musteloidea postdated a rapid change in global climate during the Eocene–
 24

Oligocene transition (~33.5 MYA), which marked a dramatic shift from ―greenhouse‖ to

―icehouse‖ conditions. This global climate change was accompanied by substantial climatic,

environmental, and biotic alterations in Asia and over other parts of the Northern Hemisphere

(Meng and McKenna, 1998; Dupont-Nivet et al., 2007; Eldrett et al., 2009; and references

therein).

5.2. Mustelidae

Our findings suggest that the crown clade Mustelidae emerged ~16.1 MYA within a period of
global warmth known as the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum (~17–15 MYA; Zachos et al.,

2001) and also indicate that early crown mustelids underwent an extensive Miocene

diversification, which proceeded largely in Asia. The survivors of the early divergences of this

diversification (Taxidiinae, Melinae, Mellivorinae, Guloninae, and Helictidinae) are mostly

represented by badgers and martens. The later divergences gave rise to the most-crownward

mustelids (Mustelinae, Ictonychinae, and Lutrinae), which have adapted to other ecological

niches and mostly include weasels, polecats, minks, and otters.

With the exception of the honey badger (Mellivora capensis), which has primarily been

classified in its own subfamily (Mellivorinae), all other extant badgers were long regarded as

closely related to each other and accordingly included in a common badger subfamily dubbed

Melinae (e.g., Macdonald, 1985). Similarly, all martens have been grouped in a single genus

(Martes); the weasels, polecats, and minks have, until recently, been united with the martens and

wolverines in a subfamily referred to as Mustelinae; and the otters have been retained in their

own subfamily Lutrinae (e.g., Wozencraft, 2005). Although the monophyly of all otters (both

extant and extinct) remains to be established, our findings are congruent with earlier observations

(e.g., Bryant et al., 1993; Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006; Koepfli et al.,

2008; Wolsan and Sato, 2010) that the living otters are monophyletic. Our results, however, also
clearly indicate that the badgers, martens, weasels, polecats, and minks are each not

monophyletic (Figs. 1–3). Specifically, the badgers are polyphyletic and the martens are
 25

paraphyletic with respect to the wolverines. In turn, weasels and polecats are scattered within

Mustelinae (here restricted to encompass only two extant genera, Mustela and Neovison) and

Ictonychinae, while a mink is found within both Mustela and Neovison. One or more of these

conclusions have also gained strong support in studies by Koepfli and Wayne (2003), Flynn et al.

(2005), Fulton and Strobeck (2006), Koepfli et al. (2008), Sato et al. (2009), and Wolsan and

Sato (2010). As a consequence, throughout this paper we use the subfamilial name Melinae in a

restricted sense to denote a monophyletic group of true badgers containing Arctonyx collaris and

the Meles species, which is in accord with the phylogenetic definition of Melinae provided in
Wolsan and Sato (2010). Although the species nomenclature in the present paper follows

Wozencraft (2005) for consistency with the currently prevailing taxonomy, so that all martens

are conventionally referred to the genus Martes as traditionally conceived, we recommend that

the subgenus Pekania be elevated to the rank of genus to accommodate the fisher (Martes

pennanti), and that the genus Martes be confined to a monophyletic group of species that

includes the remaining extant martens.

Although the sister relation between Taxidiinae and the rest of Mustelidae and that between

Helictidinae and a clade containing Mustelinae, Ictonychinae, and Lutrinae are well grounded

based on the findings of this and other recent studies (e.g., Koepfli et al., 2008), the pattern of

phylogenetic relationships among Melinae, Mellivorinae, and Guloninae remains ambiguous and

its resolution requires further study. Our results provide relatively strong support for a close

relationship between Ictonychinae and Lutrinae to the exclusion of Mustelinae, making this

phylogenetic arrangement the best supported hypothesis at present for relations among these

subfamilies.

5.3. Ictonychinae

Our phylogenetic results corroborate the hypothesis that the Old World Ictonychini and New
World Lyncodontini are monophyletic (Koepfli and Wayne, 2003; Fulton and Strobeck, 2006;

Koepfli et al., 2008; Wolsan and Sato, 2010). Our study additionally elucidates the phylogenetic
 26

position of Lyncodon patagonicus, clearly revealing that Lyncodon and Galictis are sister taxa.

Alternative hypotheses about the relationships of ictonychines (e.g., Bryant et al., 1993;

Baryshnikov and Abramov, 1998; Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999; Agnarsson et al., 2010) are thus

rejected.

Our phylogenetic reconstruction of Ictonychini agrees with that of Koepfli et al. (2008), with

both studies yielding strong support for a position of Ictonyx libyca outside a clade containing

Ictonyx striatus and Poecilogale albinucha. We therefore recommend that I. libyca be assigned

to Poecilictis, a genus in which this species was often included previously (e.g., Macdonald,
1985; Petter, 1987; Bryant et al., 1993; Baryshnikov and Abramov, 1998; Spassov, 2001). Our

recommendation is contrary to that of Koepfli et al. (2008), who proposed inclusion of all three

species in the genus Ictonyx.

The results of our chronological and biogeographic analyses indicate that the crown clades

Ictonychinae and Ictonychini originated ~9.5–8.9 MYA and ~6.5–6.0 MYA, respectively, in

Asia or Africa. The fossil record suggests Asia, rather than Africa, as the initial centers of

diversification for both clades (see section 4.4). If it was indeed Asia, then Ictonychini entered

Africa probably as late as during the Messinian Salinity Crisis, ~6.0–5.3 MYA, when the

Mediterranean Sea became isolated from the Atlantic Ocean and largely evaporated (Krijgsman

et al., 1999). This is also suggested by our findings that point to the rise of the Ictonyx–

Poecilogale clade after the Messinian Salinity Crisis, ~4.8–4.5 MYA, in Africa. Our results also

reveal that the origin of the crown clade Lyncodontini (~2.9–2.6 MYA in South America)

postdated the complete emergence of the Panamanian isthmus (~3.7–3.1 MYA; Duque-Caro,

1990), which offered a land bridge for faunal exchange between North and South America, an

event termed the Great American Biotic Interchange (Woodburne, 2010).

Acknowledgments
For providing or facilitating provision of samples for DNA sequencing, we thank Ken Aplin,

Marcelo Carrera, Michael Hoffmann, Alexei Kryukov, Conrad Matthee, Marcela Nabte,
 27

Stanisław Pagacz, Ulyses Pardiñas, Andres Pautaso, Viatcheslav Rozhnov, Martua Shinaga,

Kimiyuki Tsuchiya, and Masatoshi Yasuda. For access to fossil specimens of ictonychines

(†Galictis sorgentinii, †Baranogale helbingi, and †Lyncodon bosei), we thank Alejandro Dondas

(Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales ―Lorenzo Scaglia‖, Mar del Plata), Grzegorz Lipecki

(Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow), and

Lucas Pomi, Marcelo Reguero, and Eduardo Tonni (Museo de La Plata). We also thank

Associate Editor Link Olson, Lars Werdelin, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments

and suggestions; Klaus-Peter Koepfli for helpful advice relating to the amplification of DNA
from Mellivora capensis; and Yasunori Yamaguchi and Junko Yamamoto for assistance at

laboratory work. This research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science and Technology, Japan (grant 19405010 to H.S. and J.J.S.) and the Ministry of Science

and Higher Education, Poland (grant N N303 375336 to M.W.).

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:xxx.

References
Agnarsson, I., Kuntner, M., May-Collado, L.J., 2010. Dogs, cats, and kin: a molecular species-

level phylogeny of Carnivora. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 54, 726–745.

Agustí, J., Cabrera, L., Garcés, M., Krijgsman, W., Oms, O., Parés, J.M., 2001. A calibrated

mammal scale for the Neogene of Western Europe. State of the art. Earth-Sci. Rev. 52, 247–

260.

Akaike, H., 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In:

Petrov, B.N., Csáki, F. (Eds.), 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory,

Tsahkadsor, Armenia, USSR, September 2–8, 1971. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 267–
281.

Árnason, Ú., Gullberg, A., Janke, A., Kullberg, M., 2007. Mitogenomic analyses of caniform
 28

relationships. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 45, 863–874.

Baryshnikov, G.F., Abramov, A.V., 1998. Structure of baculum (os penis) in Mustelidae

(Mammalia, Carnivora). Communication 2. Zool. Zh. 77, 231–236 [in Russian].

Baskin, J.A., 1998. Mustelidae. In: Janis, C.M., Scott, K.M., Jacobs, L.L. (Eds.), Evolution of

Tertiary Mammals of North America, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

pp. 152–173.

Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Gittleman, J.L., Purvis, A., 1999. Building large trees by combining

phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol.

Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 74, 143–175.

Bryant, H.N., Russell, A.P., Fitch, W.D., 1993. Phylogenetic relationships within the extant

Mustelidae (Carnivora): appraisal of the cladistic status of the Simpsonian subfamilies. Zool.

J. Linn. Soc. 108, 301–334.

Cione, A.L., Tonni, E.P., 1995. Chronostratigraphy and ―land-mammal ages‖ in the Cenozoic of

southern South America: principles, practices, and the ―Uquian‖ problem. J. Paleontol. 69,

135–159.

de Bonis, L., 2008. African Carnivora from the Middle Miocene to the Pleistocene: new data,

systematics, evolution, biogeography. C. R. Palevol 7, 475–486.

de Bruijn, H., Daams, R., Daxner-Höck, G., Fahlbusch, V., Ginsburg, L., Mein, P., Morales, J.,

1992. Report of the RCMNS working group on fossil mammals, Reisensburg 1990. Newsl.

Stratigr. 26, 65–118.

Delisle, I., Strobeck, C., 2005. A phylogeny of the Caniformia (order Carnivora) based on 12

complete protein-coding mitochondrial genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37, 192–201.

Dragoo, J.W., Honeycutt, R.L., 1997. Systematics of mustelid-like carnivores. J. Mammal. 78,

426–443.

Drummond, A.J., Rambaut, A., 2007. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees.
BMC Evol. Biol. 7(214), 1–8.

Drummond, A.J., Ho, S.Y.W., Phillips, M.J., Rambaut, A., 2006. Relaxed phylogenetics and
 29

dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 4, 699–710.

Dupont-Nivet, G., Krijgsman, W., Langereis, C.G., Abels, H.A., Dai, S., Fang, X., 2007. Tibetan

plateau aridification linked to global cooling at the Eocene–Oligocene transition. Nature 445,

635–638.

Duque-Caro, H., 1990. Neogene stratigraphy, paleoceanography and paleobiogeography in

northwest South America and the evolution of the Panama Seaway. Palaeogeogr.

Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 77, 203–234.

Eizirik, E., Murphy, W.J., Koepfli, K.-P., Johnson, W.E., Dragoo, J.W., Wayne, R.K., O‘Brien,
S.J., 2010. Pattern and timing of diversification of the mammalian order Carnivora inferred

from multiple nuclear gene sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 56, 49–63.

Eldrett, J.S., Greenwood, D.R., Harding, I.C., Huber, M., 2009. Increased seasonality through the

Eocene to Oligocene transition in northern high latitudes. Nature 459, 969–973.

Felsenstein, J., 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap.

Evolution 39, 783–791.

Felsenstein, J., Churchill, G.A., 1996. A Hidden Markov Model approach to variation among

sites in rate of evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 93–104.

Finarelli, J.A., 2008. A total evidence phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora: Mammalia):

relationships among basal taxa. J. Mammal. Evol. 15, 231–259.

Flynn, J.J., Nedbal, M.A., 1998. Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): congruence vs

incompatibility among multiple data sets. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9, 414–426.

Flynn, J.J., Nedbal, M.A., Dragoo, J.W., Honeycutt, R.L., 2000. Whence the red panda? Mol.

Phylogenet. Evol. 17, 190–199.

Flynn, J.J., Finarelli, J.A., Zehr, S., Hsu, J., Nedbal, M.A., 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the

Carnivora (Mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic

relationships. Syst. Biol. 54, 317–337.

Fulton, T.L., Strobeck, C., 2006. Molecular phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora): effect of

missing data on supertree and supermatrix analyses of multiple gene data sets. Mol.
 30

Phylogenet. Evol. 41, 165–181.

Fulton, T.L., Strobeck, C., 2007. Novel phylogeny of the raccoon family (Procyonidae:

Carnivora) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA evidence. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43,

1171–1177.

Ginsburg, L., 1999. Order Carnivora. In: Rössner, G.E., Heissig, K. (Eds.), The Miocene Land

Mammals of Europe. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich, pp. 109–148.

Giribet, G., Wheeler, W.C., 1999. On gaps. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13, 132–143.

Goloboff, P.A., 1999. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite
optima. Cladistics 15, 415–428.

Goloboff, P.A., Farris, J.S., Källersjö, M., Oxelman, B., Ramírez, M.J., Szumik, C.A., 2003.

Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics 19, 324–332.

Goloboff, P.A., Farris, J.S., Nixon, K.C., 2008. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis.

Cladistics 24, 774–786.

Harding, L.E., Smith, F.A., 2009. Mustela or Vison? Evidence for the taxonomic status of the

American mink and a distinct biogeographic radiation of American weasels. Mol. Phylogenet.

Evol. 52, 632–642.

Ho, S.Y.W., 2007. Calibrating molecular estimates of substitution rates and divergence times in

birds. J. Avian Biol. 38, 409–414.

Ho, S.Y.W., Phillips, M.J., 2009. Accounting for calibration uncertainty in phylogenetic

estimation of evolutionary divergence times. Syst. Biol. 58, 367–380.

Huelsenbeck, J.P., Rannala, B., 2004. Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities

of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst. Biol. 53, 904–913.

Hunt, R.M., Jr., Skolnick, R., 1996. The giant mustelid Megalictis from the Early Miocene

carnivore dens at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska: earliest evidence of

dimorphism in New World Mustelidae (Carnivora, Mammalia). Univ. Wyoming Contrib.

Geol. 31, 35–48.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999. International Code of Zoological

 31

Nomenclature, fourth ed. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.

Ki, J.-S., Hwang, D.-S., Park, T.-J., Han, S.-H., Lee, J.-S., 2010. A comparative analysis of the

complete mitochondrial genome of the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra (Carnivora; Mustelidae).

Mol. Biol. Rep. 37, 1943–1955.

Kimura, M., 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions

through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16, 111–120.

Kishino, H., Thorne, J.L., Bruno, W.J., 2001. Performance of a divergence time estimation

method under a probabilistic model of rate evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 352–361.
Koepfli, K.-P., Wayne, R.K., 2003. Type I STS markers are more informative than cytochrome b

in phylogenetic reconstruction of the Mustelidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). Syst. Biol. 52, 571–

593.

Koepfli, K.-P., Gompper, M.E., Eizirik, E., Ho, C.-C., Linden, L., Maldonado, J.E., Wayne,

R.K., 2007. Phylogeny of the Procyonidae (Mammalia: Carnivora): molecules, morphology

and the Great American Interchange. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43, 1076–1095.

Koepfli, K.-P., Deere, K.A., Slater, G.J., Begg, C., Begg, K., Grassman, L., Lucherini, M.,

Veron, G., Wayne, R.K., 2008. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: resolving

relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC

Biol. 6(10), 1–22.

Kowalski, K., 1959. Baranogale helbingi Kormos and other Mustelidae from the bone breccia in

Podlesice near Kroczyce (Poland). Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 4, 61–69.

Krijgsman, W., Hilgen, F.J., Raffi, I., Sierro, F.J., Wilson, D.S., 1999. Chronology, causes and

progression of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature 400, 652–655.

Lanave, C., Preparata, G., Saccone, C., Serio, G., 1984. A new method for calculating

evolutionary substitution rates. J. Mol. Evol. 20, 86–93.

Ledje, C., Árnason, Ú., 1996. Phylogenetic relationships within caniform carnivores based on
analyses of the mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene. J. Mol. Evol. 43, 641–649.

Lieberman, B.S., 2002. Phylogenetic biogeography with and without the fossil record: gauging
 32

the effects of extinction and paleontological incompleteness. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.

Palaeoecol. 178, 39–52.

Macdonald, D. (Ed.), 1985. The Encyclopedia of Mammals. Facts on File, New York.

Macdonald, D.W. (Ed.), 2006. The Encyclopedia of Mammals, second ed. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Marmi, J., López-Giráldez, J.F., Domingo-Roura, X., 2004. Phylogeny, evolutionary history and

taxonomy of the Mustelidae based on sequences of the cytochrome b gene and a complex

repetitive flanking region. Zool. Scr. 33, 481–499.

Marshall, D.C., Simon, C., Buckley, T.R., 2006. Accurate branch length estimation in partitioned

Bayesian analyses requires accommodation of among-partition rate variation and attention to

branch length priors. Syst. Biol. 55, 993–1003.

McKenna, M.C., Bell, S.K., 1997. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level.

Columbia University Press, New York.

Meng, J., McKenna, M.C., 1998. Faunal turnovers of Palaeogene mammals from the Mongolian

Plateau. Nature 394, 364–367.

Morlo, M., Peigné, S., 2010. Molecular and morphological evidence for Ailuridae and a review

of its genera. In: Goswami, A., Friscia, A. (Eds.), Carnivoran Evolution: New Views on

Phylogeny, Form and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 92–140.

Nylander, J.A.A., 2004. MrModeltest v2. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University,

Uppsala.

Pagel, M., Meade, A., 2006. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by

reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Am. Nat. 167, 808–825.

Pagel, M., Meade, A., 2007. BayesTraits. Available from

http://www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk/BayesTraits.html (last accessed January 19, 2011).

Pagel, M., Meade, A., Barker, D., 2004. Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on
phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 53, 673–684.

Pascual, R., 1958. ‗Lyncodon Bosei‘, nueva especie del Ensenadense, un antecesor del huroncito
 33

patagónico. Rev. Mus. de la Plata (Nueva Ser., Secc. Paleontol.) 4(20), 1–34.

Petter, G., 1964. Deux Mustélidés nouveaux du Pontien d‘Espagne orientale. Bull. Mus. Natl.

Hist. Nat. (Sér. 2) 36, 270–278.

Petter, G., 1987. Small carnivores (Viverridae, Mustelidae, Canidae) from Laetoli. In: Leakey,

M.D., Harris, J.M. (Eds.), Laetoli: A Pliocene Site in Northern Tanzania. Clarendon Press,

Oxford, pp. 194–234.

Pocock, R.I., 1909. Warning coloration in the musteline Carnivora. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1908,

944–959.
Pocock, R.I., 1922. On the external characters and classification of the Mustelidae. Proc. Zool.

Soc. Lond. 1921, 803–837.

Posada, D., Crandall, K.A., 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution.

Bioinformatics 14, 817–818.

Ree, R.H., Smith, S.A., 2008. Maximum likelihood inference of geographic range evolution by

dispersal, local extinction, and cladogenesis. Syst. Biol. 57, 4–14.

Reig, O.A., 1956. Note préliminaire sur un nouveau genre de Mustélidés fossiles du Pléistocène

de la République Argentine. Mammalia 20, 223–230.

Reig, O.A., 1957. Un mustélido del género Galictis del Eocuartario de la provincia de Buenos

Aires. Ameghiniana 1, 33–47.

Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J.P., 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed

models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574.

Rozhnov, V.V., Meschersky, I.G., Kholodova, M.V., 2006. Molecular genetic study of marbled

polecat (Vormela peregusna, Carnivora: Mustelidae). Dokl. Biol. Sci. 407, 169–172.

Rybczynski, N., Dawson, M.R., Tedford, R.H., 2009. A semi-aquatic Arctic mammalian

carnivore from the Miocene epoch and origin of Pinnipedia. Nature 458, 1021–1024.

Salesa, M.J., Peigné, S., Antón, M., Morales, J., 2011. Evolution of the family Ailuridae: origins
and Old-World fossil record. In: Glatston, A.R. (Ed.), Red Panda: Biology and Conservation

of the First Panda. Academic Press, London, pp. 27–41.

 34

Sambrook, J., Russell, D.W., 2001. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, third ed. Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.

Sankoff, D., Rousseau, P., 1975. Locating the vertices of a Steiner tree in an arbitrary metric

space. Math. Program. 9, 240–246.

Sasaki, H., 2009. Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758). In: Ohdachi, S.D., Ishibashi, Y., Iwasa, M.A.,

Saitoh, T. (Eds.), The Wild Mammals of Japan. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, pp. 254–255.

Sato, J.J., 2006. Molecular phylogeny of Mustelidae inferred from multiple gene sequences.

Animate, Spec. No. 1, 95–100 [in Japanese].

Sato, J.J., Hosoda, T., Wolsan, M., Tsuchiya, K., Yamamoto, Y., Suzuki, H., 2003. Phylogenetic

relationships and divergence times among mustelids (Mammalia: Carnivora) based on

nucleotide sequences of the nuclear interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein and

mitochondrial cytochrome b genes. Zool. Sci. 20, 243–264.

Sato, J.J., Hosoda, T., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., 2004. Molecular phylogeny of arctoids

(Mammalia: Carnivora) with emphasis on phylogenetic and taxonomic positions of the ferret–

badgers and skunks. Zool. Sci. 21, 111–118.

Sato, J.J., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., Hosoda, T., Yamaguchi, Y., Hiyama, K., Kobayashi, M.,

Minami, S., 2006. Evidence from nuclear DNA sequences sheds light on the phylogenetic

relationships of Pinnipedia: single origin with affinity to Musteloidea. Zool. Sci. 23, 125–146.

Sato, J.J., Wolsan, M., Minami, S., Hosoda, T., Sinaga, M.H., Hiyama, K., Yamaguchi, Y.,

Suzuki, H., 2009. Deciphering and dating the red panda‘s ancestry and early adaptive

radiation of Musteloidea. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 53, 907–922.

Schmidt-Kittler, N., 1981. Zur Stammesgeschichte der marderverwandten Raubtiergruppen

(Musteloidea, Carnivora). Eclogae Geol. Helv. 74, 753–801.

Schröder, C., Bleidorn, C., Hartmann, S., Tiedemann, R., 2009. Occurrence of Can-SINEs and

intron sequence evolution supports robust phylogeny of pinniped carnivores and their
terrestrial relatives. Gene 448, 221–226.

Simmons, M.P., 2004. Independence of alignment and tree search. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31,
 35

874–879.

Soibelzon, E., Gasparini, G.M., Zurita, A.E., Soibelzon, L.H., 2008a. Análisis faunístico de

vertebrados de las ―toscas del Río de La Plata‖ (Buenos Aires, Argentina): un yacimiento

paleontológico en desaparición. Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. (Nueva Ser.) 10, 291–308.

Soibelzon, E., Tonni, E.P., Bidegain, J.C., 2008b. Cronología, magnetoestratigrafía y

caracterización bioestratigráfica del Ensenadense (Pleistoceno Inferior-Medio) en la ciudad de

Buenos Aires. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent. 63, 421–429.

Spassov, N., 2001. Zorillas (Carnivora, Mustelidae, Ictonychini) from the Villafranchian of
Bulgaria with a description of a new species of Baranogale Kormos, 1934. Geodiversitas 23,

87–104.

Swofford, D.L., 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods).

Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Tamura, K., Nei, M., 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control

region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 512–526.

Tedford, R.H., Albright, L.B. III, Barnosky, A.D., Ferrusquia-Villafranca, I., Hunt, R.M., Jr.,

Storer, J.E., Swisher, C.C. III, Voorhies, M.R., Webb, S.D., Whistler, D.P., 2004. Mammalian

biochronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian interval (late Oligocene through early

Pliocene epochs). In: Woodburne, M.O. (Ed.), Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of

North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. Columbia University Press, New York,

pp. 169–231.

Thorne, J.L., 2003. Multidivtime Software. Available from

http://statgen.ncsu.edu/thorne/multidivtime.html (last accessed January 19, 2011).

Thorne, J.L., Kishino, H., 2002. Divergence time and evolutionary rate estimation with

multilocus data. Syst. Biol. 51, 689–702.

Thorne, J.L., Kishino, H., Painter, I.S., 1998. Estimating the rate of evolution of the rate of
molecular evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 1647–1657.

Wang, X., McKenna, M.C., Dashzeveg, D., 2005. Amphicticeps and Amphicynodon (Arctoidea,
 36

Carnivora) from Hsanda Gol Formation, central Mongolia and phylogeny of basal arctoids

with comments on zoogeography. Am. Mus. Novit. 3483, 1–57.

Wolsan, M., 1989. Drapieżne—Carnivora. Folia Quatern. 59–60, 177–196.

Wolsan, M., 1993. Phylogeny and classification of early European Mustelida (Mammalia:

Carnivora). Acta Theriol. 38, 345–384.

Wolsan, M., 1999. Oldest mephitine cranium and its implications for the origin of skunks. Acta

Palaeontol. Pol. 44, 223–230.

Wolsan M., 2012. Family Mustelidae. In: Kingdon, J.S., Hoffmann, M. (Eds.), The Mammals of
Africa, vol. 5. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, in press.

Wolsan, M., Lange-Badré, B., 1996. An arctomorph carnivoran skull from the Phosphorites du

Quercy and the origin of procyonids. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 41, 277–298.

Wolsan, M., Sato, J.J., 2010. Effects of data incompleteness on the relative performance of

parsimony and Bayesian approaches in a supermatrix phylogenetic reconstruction of

Mustelidae and Procyonidae (Carnivora). Cladistics 26, 168–194.

Woodburne, M.O., 2010. The Great American Biotic Interchange: dispersals, tectonics, climate,

sea level and holding pens. J. Mammal. Evol. 17, 245–264.

Woodburne, M.O., Cione, A.L., Tonni, E.P., 2006. Central American provincialism and the

Great American Biotic Interchange. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de

Geología y Centro de Geociencias, Publicación Especial 4, 73–101.

Wozencraft, W.C., 2005. Order Carnivora. In: Wilson, D.E., Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal

Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, third ed., vol. 1. Johns

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 532–628.

Wyss, A.R., Flynn, J.J., 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. In:

Szalay, F.S., Novacek, M.J., McKenna, M.C. (Eds.), Mammal Phylogeny: Placentals.

Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 32–52.

Yamada, C., Masuda, R., 2010. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of sex-chromosomal genes

and SINE sequences in the family Mustelidae. Mammal Study 35, 17–30.
 37

Yang, Z., 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24,

1586–1591.

Yonezawa, T., Nikaido, M., Kohno, N., Fukumoto, Y., Okada, N., Hasegawa, M., 2007.

Molecular phylogenetic study on the origin and evolution of Mustelidae. Gene 396, 1–12.

Yu, L., Zhang, Y., 2006. Phylogeny of the caniform Carnivora: evidence from multiple genes.

Genetica 127, 65–79.

Yu, L., Li, Q., Ryder, O.A., Zhang, Y., 2004. Phylogenetic relationships within mammalian

order Carnivora indicated by sequences of two nuclear DNA genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
33, 694–705.

Yu, L., Liu, J., Luan, P., Lee, H., Lee, M., Min, M., Ryder, O.A., Chemnick, L., Davis, H.,

Zhang, Y., 2008. New insights into the evolution of intronic sequences of the β-fibrinogen

gene and their application in reconstructing mustelid phylogeny. Zool. Sci. 25, 662–672.

Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., Billups, K., 2001. Trends, rhythms, and

aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693.

Zharkikh, A., 1994. Estimation of evolutionary distances between nucleotide sequences. J. Mol.

Evol. 39, 315–329.

Zurawski, G., Clegg, M.T., 1987. Evolution of higher-plant chloroplast DNA-encoded genes:

implications for structure-function and phylogenetic studies. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 38,

391–418.

Zwickl, D.J., 2006. Genetic Algorithm Approaches for the Phylogenetic Analysis of Large

Biological Sequence Datasets under the Maximum Likelihood Criterion. PhD Thesis,

University of Texas at Austin.

 38

Table 1
Genomic location and aligned length of the DNA segments analyzed in this study.

Genome Gene symbol and name* Gene region Aligned

length (bp)

Nuclear APOB, apolipoprotein B (including Exon 26 963

Ag(x) antigen)

BRCA1, breast cancer 1, early onset Exon 11 1049

CHRNA1, cholinergic receptor, Exon 10, intron 9 390

nicotinic, alpha 1 (muscle)

FES, feline sarcoma oncogene Exons 14 and 15, intron 14 462

GHR, growth hormone receptor Exons 9 and 10, intron 9 711

RAG1, recombination activating gene 1 Exon 1 1095

RBP3, retinol binding protein 3, Exon 1 1188

interstitial

RHO, rhodopsin Exons 3 and 4, intron 3 288

VWF, von Willebrand factor Exon 28 1206

Mitochondrial MT-CYB, mitochondrially encoded Total gene 1140

cytochrome b

* Gene symbols and names are those recommended for the homologous human locus by the

Human Genome Organisation (http://www.genenames.org/, last accessed January 19, 2011).

 39

Table 2
Ancestral areas for the clades of Musteloidea (depicted in Figs. 1–3) as favored by the

parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian biogeographic analyses.

Clade Parsimony Maximum likelihood Bayesian inference

1 South America South America South America

2 South America South America South America

3 Asia Asia Africa

4 Asia Africa and Asia Africa

5 Africa Africa Africa

6 Africa Africa Africa

7 Asia Asia Africa

8 Asia Asia and North America Asia

9 Asia Asia Asia

10 Asia Asia Asia

11 North America North America North America

12 Asia Asia Asia

13 Asia Asia and North America Asia

14 Asia Asia Asia

15 Asia Asia Asia

16 Asia Asia Asia

17 Asia Asia Asia

18 Asia Asia Europe

19 Asia or Europe Asia and Europe n.a.

20 n.a. n.a. Europe
21 Europe Europe Europe
 40

22 Europe Europe Europe

23 n.a. Europe Africa

24 Asia Asia Asia

25 Asia Asia Asia

26 Asia Asia Asia

27 Asia Asia Asia

28 Asia Asia and North America Asia

29 Asia Asia Asia

30 n.a. Asia Asia

31 Asia Asia Asia

32 Asia Asia and North America Asia

33 Asia Asia n.a.

34 Asia Asia n.a.

35 Asia n.a. n.a.

36 n.a. Asia n.a.

37 Asia Asia Asia

38 Asia n.a. Asia

39 Asia Asia Asia

40 Asia Asia Asia

41 Asia or North America Asia and North America Asia

42 Asia or North America North America Asia

43 North America North America North America

44 Asia Asia Asia

45 Asia Asia Asia

46 Asia Asia and North America Asia

n.a., not applicable.

 41

Fig. 1. Parsimony cladogram of Musteloidea. This is the strict consensus of the two alternative

equally most-parsimonious trees (length, 7754 steps; consistency index for informative

characters, 0.375; retention index, 0.619) found in the parsimony phylogenetic analysis. The

placement of the root is indicated with an open circle (outgroup species are not shown). Numbers

at nodes are the respective clade numbers for clades with the 100% values of all support indices

or, for the remaining clades, the respective clade numbers followed by the values of bootstrap

frequency, symmetric-resampling frequency, and symmetric-resampling frequency difference

(all in percentages and in this order). Areas of recent geographic distribution for wild species
(assigned in the distributional dataset used in biogeographic analyses) are indicated in

parentheses: Af, Africa; As, Asia; Eu, Europe; NA, North America; SA, South America. The

circumscriptions of relevant suprageneric taxa are shown to the right.

Fig. 2. Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogram of Musteloidea. The tree with the highest log

likelihood (–51,157.3706) observed across the five runs of the ML phylogenetic analysis is

presented. The placement of the root is indicated with an open circle (outgroup species are not

shown). Numbers at nodes are the respective clade numbers for clades supported with a

bootstrap frequency of 100% or, for the remaining clades, the respective clade numbers followed

by the value of bootstrap frequency (%).

Fig. 3. Bayesian chronogram of Musteloidea. The branching topology is the strict consensus of

the two 50% majority-rule consensus trees (harmonic mean log likelihoods, –49,421.75 and –

49,406.85; average standard deviation of split frequencies, 0.0022) derived from both MrBayes

runs (Bayesian phylogenetic analysis). The placement of the root is indicated with an open circle

(outgroup species are not shown). Numbers at nodes are the respective clade numbers for clades

with 1.00 posterior probabilities received from both MrBayes runs or, for the remaining clades,
the respective clade numbers followed by the value of posterior probability (when posterior

probabilities differed between both MrBayes runs, their mean is given). Stars indicate clades
 42

with ages constrained by fossils. The ages of clades correspond to their posterior means averaged

across the three runs of the Multidivtime chronological analysis (the maximum differences

between posterior means for a clade across the three Multidivtime runs ranged from 0.003 to

0.039 MYA [million years ago] with a median of 0.013 MYA). Uncertainty in clade ages is

indicated by horizontal bars on clade origins: bar lengths equate to the 95% posterior intervals of

clade ages maximized across the three Multidivtime runs (i.e. limited by the maximum and

minimum interval values of all the runs). The results of the BEAST chronological analysis based

on the combined post-burn-in samples from the five BEAST runs are presented in the table
(inset) for comparison with the Multidivtime results.
 Figure 1

Fig. 1

1 Lyncodon patagonicus (SA)

2:90/93/89 Galictis cuja (SA) Lyncodontini
Galictis vittata (NA, SA)
3:85/88/82
6:78/85/80 Ictonyx striatus (Af) Ictonychinae
5:84/88/80 Poecilogale albinucha (Af)
4:99/99/99 Ictonychini
Ictonyx libyca (Af)
7:58/67/49 Vormela peregusna (As, Eu)
10:99/99/99 Aonyx cinerea (As)
9 Lutra lutra (Af, As, Eu)
8:99/100/100 Enhydra lutris (As, NA) Lutrinae
11 Lontra canadensis (NA)
Lontra longicaudis (NA, SA)
Mustela putorius (Af, Eu)
22:99/99/99 Mustelidae
Mustela furo
12 21:99/99/99
Mustela eversmanii (As, Eu)
19:64/64/45
Mustela lutreola (Eu)
18
Mustela sibirica (As, Eu)
17:99/99/99 Mustela itatsi (As)
16 24:96/98/97 Mustela altaica (As) Mustelinae
26:70/75/64 15:66/66/42 Mustela nivalis (As, Eu, NA)
Mustela erminea (Af, As, Eu, NA)
14:62/64/38 Mustela kathiah (As)
13 25 Mustela nudipes (As)
Mustela strigidorsa (As)
Neovison vison (NA)
27:64/73/64 Melogale moschata (As) Helictidinae
34:91/95/92 Martes martes (As, Eu)
33:90/93/91 Martes zibellina (As)
32:99/100/100 Martes melampus (As)
31
Martes americana (NA)
29:85/96/91 Guloninae
37:99/99/99 Martes foina (As, Eu)
28 35:77/84/75 Martes flavigula (As)
Gulo gulo (As, Eu, NA)
Martes pennanti (NA)
41 Mellivora capensis (Af, As) Mellivorinae
38:57/67/54 Meles anakuma (As)
40:99/99/99
39 Meles meles (As, Eu) Melinae
42:97/99/98
Arctonyx collaris (As)
Taxidea taxus (NA) Taxidiinae
44:92/97/95
43 Procyon cancrivorus (NA, SA)
Procyonidae
45 Procyon lotor (NA)
Ailurus fulgens (As) Ailuridae
46 Mephitis mephitis (NA)
Mephitidae
Mydaus javanensis (As)
Figure 2

Fig. 2

1 Lyncodon patagonicus
0.01 substitutions per site Galictis cuja
2
Galictis vittata
3:97
6:99 Ictonyx striatus
5:99 Poecilogale albinucha
4 Ictonyx libyca
7:87 Vormela peregusna
10 Aonyx cinerea
9 Lutra lutra
8 Enhydra lutris
11 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
23:68 Mustela putorius
22:98 Mustela furo
12 21:97 Mustela eversmanii
19:48
Mustela lutreola
18
Mustela sibirica
17 Mustela itatsi
16 Mustela altaica
24:99
26:82 15:95 Mustela nivalis
Mustela erminea
14:89 Mustela kathiah
13 25:99 Mustela nudipes
Mustela strigidorsa
Neovison vison
Melogale moschata
27:45
34:82 Martes martes
33:77 Martes zibellina
32 Martes melampus
31
Martes americana
36:32 30:82
Martes foina
29:89
Martes flavigula
28
Gulo gulo
37:99
Martes pennanti
Mellivora capensis
41 40 Meles anakuma
39 Meles meles
42:99 Arctonyx collaris
Taxidea taxus
44:99 43 Procyon cancrivorus
Procyon lotor
45
Ailurus fulgens
46 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Figure 3

Fig. 3

Clade Multidivtime analysis BEAST analysis

Posterior 95% posterior Posterior 95% posterior
mean (MYA) interval (MYA) mean (MYA) interval (MYA) Lyncodon patagonicus
1
1 2.89 3.76 2.42 2.61 2.88 2.42 Galictis cuja
2 2.03 2.86 1.34 1.67 2.17 1.17 2 Galictis vittata
3 9.53 11.35 7.95 8.95 10.32 7.65 3
6 Ictonyx striatus
4 6.48 8.22 4.97 6.01 7.23 4.78 5
5 4.85 6.35 3.58 4.46 5.51 3.46 Poecilogale albinucha
6 4.27 5.65 3.10 3.44 4.47 2.49 4 Ictonyx libyca
7 10.24 12.11 8.63 9.80 11.24 8.44 7 Vormela peregusna
8 8.30 10.11 6.74 7.37 8.69 6.07
10 Aonyx cinerea
9 5.76 7.29 4.45 4.60 5.59 3.60
9 Lutra lutra
10 4.00 5.30 2.90 3.16 3.99 2.37
11 2.25 3.20 1.48 1.43 2.01 0.93 8 Enhydra lutris
12 10.60 12.48 8.99 10.49 12.01 9.03 11 Lontra canadensis
13 7.13 8.74 5.77 6.56 7.75 5.45
Lontra longicaudis
14 6.30 7.82 5.01 5.67 6.69 4.69
15 5.56 7.01 4.33 5.17 6.13 4.24 23 Mustela putorius
16 3.97 5.14 3.00 3.40 4.10 2.73 22 Mustela furo
17 3.19 4.25 2.32 2.62 3.17 2.11 12 21 Mustela eversmanii
18 1.60 2.38 1.01 1.52 1.87 1.18 20:0.80
20 1.47 2.21 0.90 1.48 1.83 1.14 Mustela lutreola
18
21 0.60 1.16 0.24 1.22 1.54 0.91 Mustela itatsi
17
22 0.25 0.56 0.06 0.61 0.86 0.38 Mustela sibirica
23 0.17 0.44 0.02 0.41 0.61 0.22 16 Mustela altaica
24 2.60 3.55 1.84 2.00 2.55 1.52
25 3.46 4.63 2.48 2.89 3.74 2.09 26 15 24 Mustela nivalis
26 12.06 14.11 10.30 12.50 14.23 10.78 Mustela erminea
27 12.65 14.72 10.83 13.30 15.11 11.49 14
Mustela kathiah
28 7.90 9.64 6.41 6.51 7.85 5.32 Mustela nudipes
13 25
29 7.30 8.98 5.85 5.41 6.49 4.34
30 6.56 8.21 5.13 4.95 5.99 3.95 Mustela strigidorsa
31 3.63 4.84 2.61 2.46 3.08 1.85 Neovison vison
32 1.72 2.50 1.10 1.65 2.12 1.21 Melogale moschata
37 13.60 15.75 11.71 13.49 15.35 11.78 27:0.90
Martes martes
38 12.67 14.89 10.67 12.55 14.59 10.53
39 3.28 4.45 2.30 2.70 3.47 1.96 32 Martes zibellina
40 1.94 2.83 1.22 1.81 2.41 1.23 31 Martes melampus
41 16.13 18.44 14.08 16.07 18.12 14.05 Martes americana
42 28.35 30.38 27.62 28.35 29.80 27.62 30:0.99
37 Martes foina
43 3.87 5.39 2.62 2.96 4.08 1.94 29
44 30.50 33.19 28.53 30.32 32.71 27.68 Martes flavigula
28
45 32.36 35.53 29.87 30.86 34.86 27.65 Gulo gulo
46 20.21 23.50 17.19 15.60 20.55 11.78 Martes pennanti
41 Mellivora capensis
38:0.52 Meles anakuma
40
39 Meles meles
42
Arctonyx collaris
Taxidea taxus
44
43 Procyon cancrivorus
45 Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
46 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Middle
Late Early Late Early Middle Late Early Late Early Late
Eocene Oligocene Miocene Pliocene Pleistocene Holocene

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 MYA
Fig. S1. Maximum-likelihood single-gene phylograms based on 10 gene partitions: APOB (A),
BRCA1 (B), CHRNA1 (C), FES (D), GHR (E), MT-CYB (F), RAG1 (G), RBP3 (H), RHO (I), and
VWF (J). Each phylogram represents the tree with the highest log likelihood (ln L) observed across
five analysis runs. Bootstrap frequencies >50% are indicated.
 Mustela altaica
Fig. S1A Mustela sibirica
APOB Mustela erminea
Mustela lutreola
ln L = –3,547.0442 Mustela nivalis
Mustela eversmanii
52 91 Mustela furo
Mustela putorius
Mustela itatsi
Mustela kathiah
95 94 Mustela nudipes
Mustela strigidorsa
54 Neovison vison
Galictis cuja
100 Lyncodon patagonicus
Galictis vittata
96 Ictonyx striatus
87 Poecilogale albinucha
93 Ictonyx libyca
Vormela peregusna
99 Lontra canadensis
84
65 Lontra longicaudis
Enhydra lutris
Aonyx cinerea
58 Lutra lutra
Mellivora capensis
57
Melogale moschata
Martes martes
77 95 Martes melampus
56 Martes zibellina
76
Martes foina
82 Martes americana
83 Gulo gulo
Martes pennanti
78
Martes flavigula
100 Arctonyx collaris
100 Meles anakuma
60 Meles meles
Taxidea taxus
72 100 Procyon cancrivorus
Procyon lotor
100 Mephitis mephitis
60 Mydaus javanensis
Ailurus fulgens
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
 86 Mustela putorius
Fig. S1B Mustela furo
63 Mustela eversmanii
BRCA1 Mustela sibirica
Mustela nivalis
ln L = –5,344.0787
55 69 Mustela itatsi
Mustela lutreola
90
Mustela altaica
77 Mustela erminea
Mustela nudipes
100 84
Mustela strigidorsa
70
Mustela kathiah
Neovison vison
Ictonyx libyca
88 Poecilogale albinucha
77 94 Ictonyx striatus
Vormela peregusna
60 100 Galictis vittata
100 Galictis cuja
Lyncodon patagonicus
71 53 Aonyx cinerea
96 Lutra lutra
100 Enhydra lutris
100 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
Martes americana
74 Martes melampus
Martes zibellina
96
Martes foina
76
Martes martes
85 100 Martes flavigula
Gulo gulo
92
71 Martes pennanti
88 Meles anakuma
100 100 Meles meles
Arctonyx collaris
Mellivora capensis
Melogale moschata
84 Taxidea taxus
Ailurus fulgens
84 100 Procyon cancrivorus
Procyon lotor
100 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
 72 Mustela eversmanii
Fig. S1C Mustela putorius
CHRNA1 Mustela furo
Mustela sibirica
Mustela altaica
ln L = –2,283.8891 62 59 Mustela nivalis
83 Mustela itatsi
Mustela lutreola
87 Mustela erminea
Mustela nudipes
74
Mustela strigidorsa
Mustela kathiah
66 Poecilogale albinucha
69
Vormela peregusna
76 Ictonyx libyca
Ictonyx striatus
51 Galictis vittata
94 Galictis cuja
Lyncodon patagonicus
Neovison vison
Enhydra lutris
57 Lutra lutra
Aonyx cinerea
100 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
Mellivora capensis
59 Meles anakuma
93 Meles meles
Arctonyx collaris
Melogale moschata
Taxidea taxus
Gulo gulo
Martes flavigula
99 Martes pennanti
Martes americana
74 Martes zibellina
85 93 Martes melampus
Martes foina
71 Martes martes
68
100 Procyon cancrivorus
Procyon lotor
98
98 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Ailurus fulgens
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.01 substitutions per site
 91 Mustela eversmanii
Fig. S1D Mustela putorius
FES Mustela lutreola
68 74
Mustela furo
75
Mustela itatsi
ln L = –2,642.4441 77 Mustela sibirica
70 Mustela altaica
Mustela nivalis
75
Mustela erminea
64 Mustela kathiah
83 Mustela nudipes
79
Mustela strigidorsa
Neovison vison
Ictonyx striatus
65 Ictonyx libyca
97 Poecilogale albinucha
Vormela peregusna
96 Galictis vittata
100 Galictis cuja
Lyncodon patagonicus
71 88 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
70 Aonyx cinerea
92 Lutra lutra
Enhydra lutris
Melogale moschata
Martes melampus
71 68 Martes zibellina
89 Martes martes
Martes americana
97
Martes foina
93 Gulo gulo
100 Martes flavigula
Martes pennanti
93 Mellivora capensis
98 Meles anakuma
82
100 Meles meles
Arctonyx collaris
83
Taxidea taxus
81 Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.01 substitutions per site
 88 Aonyx cinerea
Fig. S1E 59 Lutra lutra
GHR 96 Enhydra lutris
100 Lontra canadensis
ln L = –3,128.4981 Lontra longicaudis
Arctonyx collaris
100 Meles anakuma
Meles meles
Mellivora capensis
56
Taxidea taxus
Galictis vittata
100 Galictis cuja
51 Lyncodon patagonicus
83 Vormela peregusna
89 Ictonyx libyca
94 Poecilogale albinucha
Ictonyx striatus
64 Mustela eversmanii
Mustela lutreola
58 Mustela putorius
71 Mustela furo
Mustela altaica
Mustela sibirica
95
Mustela itatsi
69
Mustela nivalis
Mustela erminea
93 95 Mustela nudipes
Mustela strigidorsa
61
100 Mustela kathiah
Neovison vison
Melogale moschata
Martes foina
Martes martes
66 Martes americana
83 Martes melampus
88
Martes zibellina
100
Martes flavigula
85
Gulo gulo
Martes pennanti
100 Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
100 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
 Mustela eversmanii
Fig. S1F 70 Mustela putorius
96 Mustela furo
MT-CYB
Mustela lutreola
98
ln L = –15,023.8164 88
Mustela sibirica
Mustela itatsi
77 Mustela altaica
68
89 Mustela nivalis
Mustela erminea
89 Mustela kathiah
97 Mustela nudipes
Mustela strigidorsa
53 Neovison vison
69 Galictis vittata
100 Galictis cuja
Lyncodon patagonicus
51 Ictonyx striatus
76 Vormela peregusna
97 Poecilogale albinucha
Ictonyx libyca
93 Aonyx cinerea
76 Lutra lutra
Enhydra lutris
100 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
Melogale moschata
84 Martes martes
Martes zibellina
59 Martes americana
95 Martes melampus
Martes foina
63 Gulo gulo
Martes pennanti
Martes flavigula
Mellivora capensis
93 99 Meles anakuma
100 Meles meles
Arctonyx collaris
Taxidea taxus
100 Procyon cancrivorus
Procyon lotor
Mephitis mephitis
Ailurus fulgens
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.05 substitutions per site
 Mustela eversmanii
Fig. S1G Mustela furo
Mustela putorius
RAG1 Mustela lutreola
100
Mustela sibirica
ln L = –4,220.0654 Mustela itatsi
Mustela erminea
99
Mustela altaica
Mustela nivalis
92 Mustela kathiah
97 Mustela nudipes
Mustela strigidorsa
56 Neovison vison
Galictis vittata
100 Lyncodon patagonicus
68
Galictis cuja
92 Ictonyx striatus
Poecilogale albinucha
79 77 Ictonyx libyca
Vormela peregusna
94 Aonyx cinerea
98 Lutra lutra
68 Enhydra lutris
91 100 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
54 Meles anakuma
100 Meles meles
Arctonyx collaris
95 Martes foina
60 Martes melampus
Martes zibellina
73 Martes americana
Martes martes
99 100 Gulo gulo
Martes flavigula
Martes pennanti
69 Mellivora capensis
Melogale moschata
Taxidea taxus
86 100 Procyon cancrivorus
89 Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
99 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
 67 Mustela putorius
Fig. S1H Mustela furo
RBP3 98 Mustela sibirica
92 Mustela eversmanii
ln L = –5,128.2444 Mustela itatsi
91 Mustela lutreola
58 Mustela altaica
66
Mustela nivalis
72
Mustela erminea
87 Mustela kathiah
99 Mustela nudipes
78
Mustela strigidorsa
Neovison vison
91
100 Aonyx cinerea
100 Lutra lutra
Enhydra lutris
91 94 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
51
100 Galictis cuja
74 Lyncodon patagonicus
Vormela peregusna
Melogale moschata
Martes foina
Martes zibellina
91 Martes melampus

71 Martes americana
52
Martes martes
60
Martes pennanti
81 95
Martes flavigula
56 Gulo gulo
Mellivora capensis
100
78 Meles anakuma
100 Meles meles
96 Arctonyx collaris
Taxidea taxus
87 100 Procyon cancrivorus
100 Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
96 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
 60 Mustela eversmanii
Fig. S1I Mustela putorius
Mustela itatsi
RHO 60
Mustela lutreola
Mustela furo
ln L = –1,362.6215 58 Mustela sibirica
Mustela nudipes
70 Mustela strigidorsa
63
Mustela kathiah
Mustela erminea
74
Mustela altaica
Mustela nivalis
Neovison vison
Vormela peregusna
Galictis cuja
94 Lyncodon patagonicus
Galictis vittata
77 Ictonyx striatus
62 Poecilogale albinucha
Ictonyx libyca
Enhydra lutris
82 Lutra lutra
51 Aonyx cinerea
70 Lontra canadensis
Lontra longicaudis
Melogale moschata
Martes americana
Martes martes
Martes foina
Martes melampus
Martes zibellina
Gulo gulo
Martes flavigula
54 Martes pennanti
Mellivora capensis
Taxidea taxus
Arctonyx collaris
83 Meles meles
Meles anakuma
Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
99 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
 75 Mustela eversmanii
Fig. S1J 73 Mustela furo

VWF 94 Mustela putorius

95 Mustela itatsi
ln L = –5,661.6161 Mustela sibirica
71 Mustela lutreola
98 Mustela altaica
96 Mustela nivalis
76 Mustela erminea
Mustela kathiah
60
Neovison vison
75 99 Mustela nudipes
Mustela strigidorsa
67
98 Aonyx cinerea
98 Lutra lutra
70 Enhydra lutris
100 Lontra canadensis
93 Lontra longicaudis
100 Galictis cuja
Lyncodon patagonicus
Vormela peregusna
62
Martes americana
Martes melampus
85 Martes martes
82 Martes zibellina
Martes flavigula
70
Martes foina
93 97
Martes pennanti
Gulo gulo
Meles anakuma
100 100 Meles meles
Arctonyx collaris
Mellivora capensis
96
Melogale moschata
Taxidea taxus
99
100 Procyon cancrivorus
100 Procyon lotor
Ailurus fulgens
100 Mephitis mephitis
Mydaus javanensis
Phoca largha
Melursus ursinus
0.005 substitutions per site
Table S1
Taxa and gene sequences employed in this study.

Taxon* DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank accession Nos.‡

APOB BRCA1 CHRNA1 FES GHR MT-CYB RAG1 RBP3 RHO VWF
Musteloidea
Ailurus fulgens, red panda AB193430a AB371329b DQ205732c DQ205771c DQ205804c AB291074d AB188525a AB188520a DQ205877c AB371361b
Aonyx cinerea, Oriental small- AB285334b AB285342b AF498130e AF498161e AF498185e AF057119f AB285380b AB285372b AF498209e AB285388b
clawed otter
Arctonyx collaris, hog badger AB288847b AB288848b AF498149e AF498180e AF498204e AF498157e AB288850b AB288849b AF498228e AB288851b
Enhydra lutris, sea otter AB193403a AB285343b AF498131e AF498162e AF498186e AF057120f AB109355g AB082978h AF498210e AB285389b
Galictis cuja, lesser grison AB564020 AB564021 AB564022 AB564023 AB564024 AB564025 AB564026 AB564027 AB564028 AB564029
Galictis vittata, greater grison EF987538i EF987664i AF498145e AF498176e AF498200e AF498155e EF987983i — AF498224e —
Gulo gulo, wolverine AB193407a AB285344b AF498143e AF498174e AF498198e AB051245j AB109340 AB082962 AF498222e
g h
AB285390b
Ictonyx libyca, Saharan striped EF987520i EF987644i EF987699i EF987757i EF987772i EF987739i EF987971i — EF988014i —
polecat
Ictonyx striatus, striped polecat AF548425k EF472315l AF498146e AF498177e AF498201e AF498156e EF472413l — AF498225e —
Lontra canadensis, North American AB285335 AB285345 AB564030 AB564031 AB564032 AB564033 AB285381 AB285373 AB564034 AB285391b
b b b b

river otter
Lontra longicaudis, Neotropical AB564035 AB564036 AB564037 AB564038 AB564039 AB564040 AB564041 AB564042 AB564043 AB564044
otter
Lutra lutra, European otter AB564045 AB564046 AB564047 AB564048 AB564049 AB564050 AB564051 AB564052 AB564053 AB564054
Lyncodon patagonicus, Patagonian AB564055 AB564056 AB564057 AB564058 AB564059 AB564060 AB564061 AB564062 AB564063 AB564064
weasel
Martes americana, American AB193408a AB285346b AF498141e AF498172e AF498196e AB051234j AB109341g AB082963h AF498220e AB285392b
marten
Martes flavigula, yellow-throated AB193409a AB285347b EF987709i EF987765i EF987782i AB051235j AB109342g AB082964h EF988024i AB285393b
marten
Martes foina, beech marten AB193410a AB285348b EF987710i EF987766i EF987783i AB051236j AB109343g AB082965h EF988025i AB285394b
Martes martes, European pine AB193411a AB285349b EF987711i EF987767i EF987784i AB051237j AB109344g AB082966h EF988026i AB285395b
marten
Martes melampus, Japanese marten AB208514a AB285350b EF987712i EF987768i EF987785i AB051238j AB208515a AB082967h EF988027i AB285396b
Martes pennanti, fisher AB285336b AB285351b AF498142e AF498173e AF498197e AF057131f AB285382b AB285374b AF498221e AB285397b
Martes zibellina, sable AB193412a AB285352b EF987713i EF987769i EF987786i AB564065 AB109345g AB109329g EF988028i AB285398b
Meles anakuma, Japanese badger AB285337b AB285353b AB564066 AB564067 AB564068 AB285330 AB285383b AB082980h AB564069 AB285399b
Meles meles, European badger AB193404a AB285354b AF498147e AF498178e AF498202e X94922m AB109356g AB082979h AF498226e AB285400b
Mellivora capensis, honey badger AB564070 AB564071 AB564072 AB564073 AB564074 EF987755i AB564075 AB564076 AB564077 AB564078
Melogale moschata, Chinese ferret– AB193405a AB285355b AF498150e AF498181e AF498205e AF498158e AB109357g AB109330g AF498229e AB285401b
badger
Mephitis mephitis, striped skunk AB193406a AB371327b DQ205733c — DQ205805c X94927m AB109358g AB109331g DQ205846c AB371359b
(continued on next page)
Table S1 (continued)
Taxon* DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank accession Nos.‡
APOB BRCA1 CHRNA1 FES GHR MT-CYB RAG1 RBP3 RHO VWF
Mustela altaica, mountain weasel AB193413a AB285356b AB564079 AB564080 AB564081 AB051239j AB109346g AB082968h AB564082 AB285402b
Mustela erminea, ermine AB193414a AB285357b AF498138e AF498169e AF498193e AB051240j AB109347g AB082969h AF498217e AB285403b
Mustela eversmanii, steppe polecat AB193415a AB285358b EF987701i EF987758i EF987774i AB026102n AB109348g AB082970h EF988016i AB285404b
Mustela furo, domestic ferret AB193418a AB285359b DQ205736c DQ205774c DQ205808c AB026103n AB109351g AB082974h DQ205849c AB285405b
Mustela itatsi, Japanese weasel AB285338b AB285360b AB564083 AB564084 AB564085 AB026104n AB285384b AB082971h AB564086 AB285406b
Mustela kathiah, yellow-bellied AB285339b AB285361b AB564087 AB564088 AB564089 AB285331 AB285385b AB285377b AB564090 AB285407b
weasel
Mustela lutreola, European mink AB193416a AB285362b EF987702i EF987759i EF987775i AB026105n AB109349g AB082972h EF988017i AB285408b
Mustela nivalis, least weasel AB193417a AB285363b EF987704i EF987761i EF987777i AB051241j AB109350g AB082973h EF988019i AB285409b
Mustela nudipes, Malayan weasel AB285340b AB285364b EF987705i AB564091 EF987778i AB285332 AB285386b AB285378b EF988020i AB285410b
Mustela putorius, European polecat AB193419a AB285365b EF987706i EF987762i EF987779i AB026107n AB109352g AB082975h EF988021i AB285411b
Mustela sibirica, Siberian weasel AB193420a AB285366b EF987707i EF987763i EF987780i AB051242j AB109353g AB082976h EF988022i AB285412b
Mustela strigidorsa, back-striped AB305633b AB305634b EF987708i EF987764i EF987781i AB305635 AB305636b AB305637b EF988023i AB305638b
weasel
Mydaus javanensis, Sunda stink AB371314b AB371328b AB564092 AB564093 AB564094 AB564095 AB371341b AB371346b AB564096 AB371360b
badger
Neovison vison, American mink AB193421a AB285367b AF498140e AF498171e AF498195e AF057129f AB109354g AB082977h AF498219e AB285413b
Poecilogale albinucha, African EF472295l EF472312l EF472333l EF472352l EF472355l EF472349l EF472411l — EF472429l —
striped weasel
Procyon cancrivorus, crab-eating AB564097 AB564098 DQ660215o — — AB564099 AB564100 AB564101 — AB564102
raccoon
Procyon lotor, raccoon AB193427a AB285371b AF498152e AF498183e AF498207e X94930m AB109359g AB082981h AF498231e AB285417b
Taxidea taxus, American badger AB285341b AB285368b AF498148e AF498179e AF498203e AF057132f AB285387b AB285379b AF498227e AB285414b
Vormela peregusna, marbled polecat AB564103 AB564104 AB564105 AB564106 AB564107 AB564108 AB564109 AB564110 AB564111 AB564112
Pinnipedia
Phoca largha, spotted seal AB193424a AB371325b DQ205754c DQ205793c DQ205827c AM181031p AB188524a AB188519a DQ205867c AB371357b
Ursidae
Melursus ursinus, sloth bear AB193428a AB371322b DQ205728c DQ205768c DQ205801c EF196662q AB109362g AB109334g DQ205842c AB371354b

* The naming of wild species follows Wozencraft (2005). The scientific name of the domestic ferret, Mustela furo, is as recommended in Gentry et al. (2004).
‡ References for previously published sequences are as follows: a Sato et al. (2006); b Sato et al. (2009); c Fulton and Strobeck (2006); d Yonezawa et al. (2007);
e
Koepfli and Wayne (2003); f Koepfli and Wayne (1998); g Sato et al. (2004); h Sato et al. (2003); i Koepfli et al. (2008a); j Hosoda et al. (2000); k Amrine-Madsen
et al. (2003); l Koepfli et al. (2008b); m Ledje and Árnason (1996); n Kurose et al. (2000); o Koepfli et al. (2007); p Árnason et al. (2006); q Yu et al. (2007). The
download of these sequences from the databases was completed on November 7, 2009. For information on the vouchers of newly generated sequences, see
Supplementary Table S2. Dashes indicate that no sequence for a particular taxon and gene was available.
References
Amrine-Madsen, H., Koepfli, K.-P., Wayne, R.K., Springer, M.S., 2003. A new phylogenetic marker,
apolipoprotein B, provides compelling evidence for eutherian relationships. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 28,
225–240.
Árnason, Ú., Gullberg, A., Janke, A., Kullberg, M., Lehman, N., Petrov, E.A., Väinölä, R., 2006. Pinniped
phylogeny and a new hypothesis for their origin and dispersal. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 41, 345–354.
Fulton, T.L., Strobeck, C., 2006. Molecular phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora): effect of missing data
on supertree and supermatrix analyses of multiple gene data sets. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 41, 165–181.
Gentry, A., Clutton-Brock, J., Groves, C.P., 2004. The naming of wild animal species and their domestic
derivatives. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 645–651.
Hosoda, T., Suzuki, H., Harada, M., Tsuchiya, K., Han, S.-H., Zhang, Y., Kryukov, A.P., Lin, L.-K.,
2000. Evolutionary trends of the mitochondrial lineage differentiation in species of genera Martes and
Mustela. Genes Genet. Syst. 75, 259–267.
Koepfli, K.-P., Wayne, R.K., 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of otters (Carnivora: Mustelidae) based on
mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences. J. Zool. 246, 401–416.
Koepfli, K.-P., Wayne, R.K., 2003. Type I STS markers are more informative than cytochrome b in
phylogenetic reconstruction of the Mustelidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). Syst. Biol. 52, 571–593.
Koepfli, K.-P., Gompper, M.E., Eizirik, E., Ho, C.-C., Linden, L., Maldonado, J.E., Wayne, R.K., 2007.
Phylogeny of the Procyonidae (Mammalia: Carnivora): molecules, morphology and the Great
American Interchange. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43, 1076–1095.
Koepfli, K.-P., Deere, K.A., Slater, G.J., Begg, C., Begg, K., Grassman, L., Lucherini, M., Veron, G.,
Wayne, R.K., 2008a. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: resolving relationships, tempo and
biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biol. 6(10), 1–22.
Koepfli, K.-P., Kanchanasaka, B., Sasaki, H., Jacques, H., Louie, K.D.Y., Hoai, T., Dang, N.X., Geffen,
E., Gutleb, A., Han, S., Heggberget, T.M., LaFontaine, L., Lee, H., Melisch, R., Ruiz-Olmo, J., Santos-
Reis, M., Sidorovich, V.E., Stubbe, M., Wayne, R.K., 2008b. Establishing the foundation for an
applied molecular taxonomy of otters in Southeast Asia. Conserv. Genet. 9, 1589–1604.
Kurose, N., Abramov, A.V., Masuda, R., 2000. Intrageneric diversity of the cytochrome b gene and
phylogeny of Eurasian species of the genus Mustela (Mustelidae, Carnivora). Zool. Sci. 17, 673–679.
Ledje, C., Árnason, Ú., 1996. Phylogenetic analyses of complete cytochrome b genes of the order
Carnivora with particular emphasis on the Caniformia. J. Mol. Evol. 42, 135–144.
Sato, J.J., Hosoda, T., Wolsan, M., Tsuchiya, K., Yamamoto, Y., Suzuki, H., 2003. Phylogenetic
relationships and divergence times among mustelids (Mammalia: Carnivora) based on nucleotide
sequences of the nuclear interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein and mitochondrial cytochrome b
genes. Zool. Sci. 20, 243–264.
Sato, J.J., Hosoda, T., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., 2004. Molecular phylogeny of arctoids (Mammalia:
Carnivora) with emphasis on phylogenetic and taxonomic positions of the ferret–badgers and skunks.
Zool. Sci. 21, 111–118.
Sato, J.J., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., Hosoda, T., Yamaguchi, Y., Hiyama, K., Kobayashi, M., Minami, S.,
2006. Evidence from nuclear DNA sequences sheds light on the phylogenetic relationships of
Pinnipedia: single origin with affinity to Musteloidea. Zool. Sci. 23, 125–146.
Sato, J.J., Wolsan, M., Minami, S., Hosoda, T., Sinaga, M.H., Hiyama, K., Yamaguchi, Y., Suzuki, H.,
2009. Deciphering and dating the red panda’s ancestry and early adaptive radiation of Musteloidea.
Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 53, 907–922.
Wozencraft, W.C., 2005. Order Carnivora. In: Wilson, D.E., Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal Species of the
World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, third ed., vol. 1. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD, pp. 532–628.
Yonezawa, T., Nikaido, M., Kohno, N., Fukumoto, Y., Okada, N., Hasegawa, M., 2007. Molecular
phylogenetic study on the origin and evolution of Mustelidae. Gene 396, 1–12.
Yu, L., Li, Y.-W., Ryder, O.A., Zhang, Y.-P., 2007. Analysis of complete mitochondrial genome
sequences increases phylogenetic resolution of bears (Ursidae), a mammalian family that experienced
rapid speciation. BMC Evol. Biol. 7(198), 1–11.
Table S2
Voucher information for the sequences obtained in this study.

Species DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank accession Voucher reference No.* and geographic

Nos. origin
Galictis cuja AB564020–AB564029 MC 795; 42°28′10″ S, 64°22′06″ W,
Valdes Peninsula, Chubut, Argentina
Lontra canadensis AB564030–AB564034 TH 332; Canada
Lontra longicaudis AB564035–AB564044 MFA-ZV-MH 2; Cayastá, Santa Fé,
Argentina
Lutra lutra AB564045–AB564054 JS 331; Wetlina, Bieszczady Mts., Poland
Lyncodon patagonicus AB564055–AB564064 MC 379; Puerto Madryn, Chubut,
Argentina
Martes zibellina AB564065 TH 47; Hokkaido, Japan
Meles anakuma AB285330, AB564066–AB564069 KT 2996; Miyazaki, Kyushu, Japan
Mellivora capensis AB564070–AB564078 SU HB30; 25°37′58″ S, 20°34′57″ E,
Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, South Africa
Mustela altaica AB564079–AB564082 AK 805; Cherga, Altai Republic, Russia
Mustela itatsi AB564083–AB564086 TH 50; Hokkaido, Japan
Mustela kathiah AB285331, AB564087–AB564090 TH 321; Kunming, Yunnan, China
Mustela nudipes AB285332, AB564091 BM 2002-227; Tasek Merimbun Heritage
Park, Tutong, Brunei Darussalam
Mustela strigidorsa AB305635 ANWC M32057; Oudomsouk, Nakai,
Khammouan, Laos
Mydaus javanensis AB564092–AB564096 JS 229; Mt. Salak, Bogor, Java, Indonesia
Procyon cancrivorus AB564097–AB564102 MFA-ZV-MH 17; Garay, Santa Fé,
Argentina
Vormela peregusna AB564103–AB564112 IPEE 345; Lake Sevan region, Armenia

* AK, A. P. Kryukov’s collection deposited in the Institute of Biology and Soil Science, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia; ANWC, Australian National Wildlife Collection,
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia; BM, Brunei
Museum, Kota Batu, Brunei Darussalam; IPEE, Animal Tissue Depository for DNA Analysis, A. N.
Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; JS, J. J.
Sato’s collection deposited in the Laboratory of Animal Cell Technology, Faculty of Life Science and
Technology, Fukuyama University, Fukuyama, Japan; KT, K. Tsuchiya’s collection deposited in the
Faculty of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Atsugi, Japan; MC, M. Carrera’s collection
deposited in the División Mastozoología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino
Rivadavia”, Buenos Aires, Argentina; MFA-ZV-MH, Área Zoología Vertebrados, Museo Florentino
Ameghino, Santa Fé, Argentina; SU, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch, South Africa; TH, T. Hosoda’s collection deposited in the Laboratory of Ecology and
Genetics, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Table S3
Primers used for the amplification and sequencing of the 10 genes used in this study.

Gene Primer Source

Name Direction Sequence (5′ to 3′)
APOB 187F Forward GTG CCA GGT TCA ATC AGT ATA AGT Amrine-Madsen et al. (2003)
APOB-F9287 Forward TAT AAC CAG TCA GAT ATT GTT GCT Sato et al. (2006)
APOB-R9324 Reverse GGT GCC CTC TAA TTT GTA CTG CAG Sato et al. (2006)
J1R Reverse CCA GCA AAA TTT TCT TTT ACT TCA A Jiang et al. (1998)
BRCA1 BRCA1-F997 Forward GAG AAC AGC AGT TTA TTA CTC AC Sato et al. (2009)
BRCA1-F1428 Forward AGA CTT AAT GGC CAG TGA TCC TC Sato et al. (2009)
BRCA1-R1509 Reverse AGG CTT GCC TTC CTC CGA TAG GT Sato et al. (2009)
BRCA1-R2047 Reverse CAT CTC TTC ACT GCT AGA ACA AC Sato et al. (2009)
CHRNA1 CHRNA1-F Forward GAC CAT GAA GTC AGA CCA GGA G Lyons et al. (1997)
CHRNA1-R Reverse GGA GTA TGT GGT CCA TCA CCA T Lyons et al. (1997)
FES HFESEX14D Forward GGG GAA CTT TGG CGA AGT GTT Venta et al. (1996)
HFESEX15U Reverse TCC ATG ACG ATG TAG ATG GG Venta et al. (1996)
GHR HGHREX9D Forward CCA GTT CCA GTT CCA AAG AT Venta et al. (1996)
HGHREX10U Reverse TGA TTC TTC TGG TCA AGG CA Venta et al. (1996)
MT-CYB H15401-Plotor Reverse TGG TGT AGT ATG GGT GAA ATG G Sato et al. (2009)
H15915 Reverse AAC TGC AGT CAT CTC CGG TTT ACA AGA C S. Pääbo in Irwin et al. (1991)
L14724 Forward CGA AGC TTG ATA TGA AAA ACC ATC GTT G S. Pääbo in Irwin et al. (1991)
L15243-Plotor Forward CCT TGT AGA ATG AAT TTG AGG Sato et al. (2009)
RAG1 RAG1-F1851 Forward ACA TGG AAG AAG ACA TCT TGG AAG G Sato et al. (2004)
RAG1-F2357 Forward AGC CTC CCA AAA TCT TGT CTT CCA CTC CA Sato et al. (2004)
RAG1-R2486 Reverse AAT GTC ACA GTG AAG GGC ATC TAT GGA AGG Sato et al. (2004)
RAG1F1705 Forward GCT TTG ATG GAC ATG GAA GAA GAC AT Teeling et al. (2000)
RAG1R2864 Reverse GAG CCA TCC CTC TCA ATA ATT TCA GG Teeling et al. (2000)
RBP3 –IRBP1531 Reverse CGC AGG TCC ATG ATG AGG TGC TCC GTG TCC TG Stanhope et al. (1992)
R+IRBP335 Forward CAG GAA ACA GCT ATG ACC CAT CTC AGA CCC TCA GAC GCT Serizawa et al. (2000)
R+IRBP724-short Forward CCT GCA CGT GGA TAC CAT CT Sato et al. (2009)
R+IRBP1085 Forward CAG GAA ACA GCT ATG ACC AGA GAA GGC CCT GGC CAT CCT Suzuki et al. (2000)
U–IRBP734 Reverse TGT AAA ACG ACG GCC AGT TCT CTG TGG TGG TGT TGG AGG Serizawa et al. (2000)
U–IRBP1145-short Reverse GCG GTC CAC CAG CGT GTA GT Sato et al. (2009)
RHO HRHOEX3D Forward TAC ATG TTC GTG GTC CAC TT Venta et al. (1996)
HRHOEX4U Reverse TGG TGG GTG AAG ATG TAG AA Venta et al. (1996)

(continued on next page)

Table S3 (continued)
Gene Primer Source
Name Direction Sequence (5′ to 3′)
VWF vWF-F241-dog Forward TGT CAA CTT CAC CTG TCA GGC CTG Sato et al. (2009)
vWF-F281-mustelids Forward TGG TGC CCC CCA CGG AAG GC This study
vWF-F611 Forward GAG GTG GCC TCC ACC AGC GAG GTC Sato et al. (2009)
vWF-F1072 Forward GAC AAA ATT GGT GAG GCC AAC TT Sato et al. (2009)
vWF-R816 Reverse TTG TTC TCG GGG GCC TGC TTC TC Sato et al. (2009)
vWF-R1076 Reverse TCC TCC ATG AAC TCC CTG CTC TTG Sato et al. (2009)
vWF-R1432-mustelids Reverse TCT CCA GCT CCT GCG GGT CGG This study
vWF-R1507-dog Reverse TGT AGC ACC AGA TCA GGA GCC TCT C Sato et al. (2009)

References
Amrine-Madsen, H., Koepfli, K.-P., Wayne, R.K., Springer, M.S., 2003. A new phylogenetic marker, apolipoprotein B, provides compelling evidence for
eutherian relationships. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 28, 225–240.
Irwin, D.M., Kocher, T.D., Wilson, A.C., 1991. Evolution of the cytochrome b gene of mammals. J. Mol. Evol. 32, 128–144.
Jiang, Z., Priat, C., Galibert, F., 1998. Traced orthologous amplified sequence tags (TOASTs) and mammalian comparative maps. Mammal. Genome 9,
577–587.
Lyons, L.A., Laughlin, T.F., Copeland, N.G., Jenkins, N.A., Womack, J.E., O’Brien, S.J., 1997. Comparative anchor tagged sequences (CATS) for
integrative mapping of mammalian genomes. Nature Genet. 15, 47–56.
Sato, J.J., Hosoda, T., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., 2004. Molecular phylogeny of arctoids (Mammalia: Carnivora) with emphasis on phylogenetic and
taxonomic positions of the ferret–badgers and skunks. Zool. Sci. 21, 111–118.
Sato, J.J., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., Hosoda, T., Yamaguchi, Y., Hiyama, K., Kobayashi, M., Minami, S., 2006. Evidence from nuclear DNA sequences
sheds light on the phylogenetic relationships of Pinnipedia: single origin with affinity to Musteloidea. Zool. Sci. 23, 125–146.
Sato, J.J., Wolsan, M., Minami, S., Hosoda, T., Sinaga, M.H., Hiyama, K., Yamaguchi, Y., Suzuki, H., 2009. Deciphering and dating the red panda’s
ancestry and early adaptive radiation of Musteloidea. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 53, 907–922.
Serizawa, K., Suzuki, H., Tsuchiya, K., 2000. A phylogenetic view on species radiation in Apodemus inferred from variation of nuclear and
mitochondrial genes. Biochem. Genet. 38, 27–40.
Stanhope, M.J., Czelusniak, J., Si, J.-S., Nickerson, J., Goodman, M., 1992. A molecular perspective on mammalian evolution from the gene encoding
interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein, with convincing evidence for bat monophyly. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1, 148–160.
Suzuki, H., Tsuchiya, K., Takezaki, N., 2000. A molecular phylogenetic framework for the Ryukyu endemic rodents Tokudaia osimensis and Diplothrix
legata. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 15, 15–24.
Teeling, E.C., Scally, M., Kao, D.J., Romagnoli, M.L., Springer, M.S., Stanhope, M.J., 2000. Molecular evidence regarding the origin of echolocation
and flight in bats. Nature 403, 188–192.
Venta, P.J., Brouillette, J.A., Yuzbasiyan-Gurkan, V., Brewer, G.J., 1996. Gene-specific universal mammalian sequence-tagged sites: application to the
canine genome. Biochem. Genet. 34, 321–341.
Table S4
Estimates of divergence times among musteloid clades (clade numbers are identified in Fig. 3) derived
from an additional BEAST analysis with an alternative set of fossil calibrations, including minimum ages
of 2.4 million years ago (MYA) for Lyncodontini, clade 1 (based on †Galictis sorgentinii), 4.2 MYA for
Ictonychini, clade 4 (based on †Baranogale helbingi), 23.3 MYA for the crown clade of procyonids and
mustelids, clade 42 (based on †Plesictis plesictis), and 33.7 MYA for Mustelida, the crown clade of
musteloids and pinnipeds (based on †Mustelavus priscus).

Clade Posterior mean (MYA) 95% posterior interval (MYA)

1 2.63 2.92–2.42
2 1.71 2.20–1.21
3 9.28 10.41–8.16
4 6.30 7.46–5.16
5 4.68 5.73–3.68
6 3.60 4.62–2.63
7 10.16 11.31–8.99
8 7.67 8.82–6.56
9 4.84 5.74–3.91
10 3.33 4.14–2.56
11 1.55 2.13–1.05
12 10.86 12.07–9.64
13 6.83 7.83–5.85
14 5.88 6.75–5.01
15 5.36 6.25–4.55
16 3.58 4.21–2.95
17 2.77 3.28–2.26
18 1.61 1.96–1.26
20 1.57 1.94–1.23
21 1.29 1.64–0.97
22 0.65 0.91–0.42
23 0.43 0.64–0.23
24 2.12 2.65–1.64
25 3.02 3.81–2.26
26 12.89 14.35–11.39
27 13.70 15.24–12.13
28 6.88 8.06–5.71
29 5.72 6.76–4.77
30 5.23 6.22–4.31
31 2.57 3.24–1.97
32 1.76 2.24–1.31
37 13.86 15.50–2.31
38 12.90 14.75–11.07
39 2.88 3.61–2.17
40 1.91 2.48–1.34
41 16.25 18.26–14.35
42 26.73 30.30–23.42
43 3.13 4.28–2.02
44 29.95 34.26–26.79
45 34.18 35.55–33.45
46 19.43 23.00–15.69

The analytical procedure, adopted models, and software settings were as described in section 2.4.2. All
effective sample size values for parameters of the time to the most recent common ancestor exceeded 200,
with the exception of clades 42 and 44, for which these values were 134 each.