A comparative study on auditory and hyoid bones of Jurassic euharamiyidans and contrasting evidence for mammalian middle ear evolution

摘要

Abstract The holotypes of euharamiyidan Arboroharamiya allinhopsoni and Arboroharamiya jenkinsi preserve the auditory and hyoid bones, respectively. With additional structures revealed by micro‐computerized tomography ( CT ) and X‐ray micro‐computed laminography ( CL ), we provide a detailed description of these minuscule bones. The stapes in the two species of Arboroharamiya are similar in having a strong process for insertion of the stapedius muscle. The incus is similar in having an almond‐shaped body and a slim short process, in addition to a robust stapedial process with a short lenticular process preserved in A.?allinhopsoni . The plate‐like ectotympanic in the two species of Arboroharamiya is similar and comparable to that of Qishou jizantang . The surangular in the two species has a fan‐shaped body and a needle‐shaped anterior process. The malleus, ectotympanic, and surangular are fully detached from the dentary and should have functioned exclusively for hearing. All the auditory bones of Arboroharamiya display unique features unknown in other mammaliaforms. Moreover, hyoid elements are found in the two species of Arboroharamiya and co‐exist with the five auditory bones in the holotype of A.?allinhopsoni . The element interpreted as the stylohyal is similar to the bone identified as the ectotympanic in Vilevolodon . We reconstruct the auditory apparatus of Arboroharamiya and compare it with that of Vilevolodon as well as those in extant mammals and basal mammaliaforms. The comparison shows diverse morphological patterns of the auditory region in mammaliaforms. In particular, those of Vilevolodon and Arboroharamiya differ significantly: the former has a mandibular middle ear, whereas the latter possesses a definitive mammalian middle ear. It is puzzling that the two sympatric and dentally similar taxa have such different auditory apparatuses. In light of the available evidence, we argue that the mandibular middle ear reconstructed in Vilevolodon encounters many problems, and the so‐called ectotympanic in Vilevolodon may be interpreted as a stylohyal; thus, the dilemma can be resolved.