Background: Late Pleistocene North America hosted at least two divergent and ecologically distinct species of mammoth: the periglacial woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and the subglacial Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). To date, mammoth genetic research has been entirely restricted to woolly mammoths, rendering their genetic evolution difficult to contextualize within broader Pleistocene paleoecology and biogeography. Here, we take an interspecific approach to clarifying mammoth phylogeny by targeting Columbian mammoth remains for mitogenomic sequencing. Results: We sequenced the first complete mitochondrial genome of a classic Columbian mammoth, as well as the first complete mitochondrial genome of a North American woolly mammoth. Somewhat contrary to conventional paleontological models, which posit that the two species were highly divergent, the M. columbi mitogenome we obtained falls securely within a subclade of endemic North American M. primigenius. Conclusions: Though limited, our data suggest that the two species interbred at some point in their evolutionary histories. One potential explanation is that woolly mammoth haplotypes entered Columbian mammoth populations via introgression at subglacial ecotones, a scenario with compelling parallels in extant elephants and consistent with certain regional paleontological observations. This highlights the need for multi-genomic data to sufficiently characterize mammoth evolutionary history. Our results demonstrate that the use of next-generation sequencing technologies holds promise in obtaining such data, even from non-cave, non-permafrost Pleistocene depositional contexts.

Stratigraphic data are compared to morphologic data in terms of their fit to phylogenetic hypotheses for 29 data sets taken from the literature. Stratigraphic fit is measured using MacClade's stratigraphic character, which tracks the number of independent discrepancies between observed order and the order of occurrence that would be expected on the basis of a given phylogenetic hypothesis. Acceptance of a phylogenetic hypothesis despite such discrepancies requires ad hoc hypotheses concerning differential probabilities of preservation and recovery. These stratigraphic ad hoc hypotheses are treated as logically equivalent to morphologic ad hoc hypotheses of homoplasy. The retention index is used to compare the number of stratigraphic and morphologic ad hoc hypotheses required by given phylogenetic hypotheses. Each data set is subjected to five analyses, varying in the constraints imposed on the structure of the phylogenetic tree against which fit is measured. Analyses 1–4 compare the stratigraphic and morphologic retention indices using phylogenetic trees consistent with the morphologically most-parsimonious cladogram reported in the original study. Analysis 5 compares retention indices using the overall (stratigraphically and morphologically) most-parsimonious phylogenetic tree, which may be, but is not necessarily, consistent with the reported cladogram. Proceeding from Analysis 1 to Analysis 5, stratigraphic data are allowed greater influence in determining the structure of phylogenetic trees, with the trees in Analysis 1 derived without reference to the stratigraphic character and the trees in Analysis 5 derived from full interaction of stratigraphic and morphologic characters. Morphologic and stratigraphic retention indices for these 29 studies cannot be statistically distinguished in comparisons 3–5, suggesting very similar degrees of fit. The values of these retention indices are high, indicating a generally high level of congruence under these phylogenetic hypotheses. Significant gains (49%) in stratigraphic fit can be realized without significant loss (4%) in morphologic fit as the stratigraphic and morphologic evidence are both allowed to participate in constraining the structure of phylogenetic hypotheses. These results suggest that arguments based on alleged “noisiness” of stratigraphic data offer inadequate grounds for ignoring stratigraphic order in phylogenetic analysis. In terms of congruence, stratigraphic and morphologic data perform about equally well.

Under harsh Pleistocene climates, migration and other forms of seasonally patterned landscape use were likely critical for reproductive success of mastodons (Mammut americanum) and other megafauna. However, little is known about how their geographic ranges and mobility fluctuated seasonally or changed with sexual maturity. We used a spatially explicit movement model that coupled strontium and oxygen isotopes from two serially sampled intervals (5+ adolescent years and 3+ adult years) in a male mastodon tusk to test for changes in landscape use associated with maturation and reproductive phenology. The mastodon’s early adolescent home range was geographically restricted, with no evidence of seasonal preferences. Following inferred separation from the matriarchal herd (starting age 12 y), the adolescent male’s mobility increased as landscape use expanded away from his natal home range (likely central Indiana). As an adult, the mastodon’s monthly movements increased further. Landscape use also became seasonally structured, with some areas, including northeast Indiana, used only during the inferred mastodon mating season (spring/summer). The mastodon died in this area (>150 km from his core, nonsummer range) after sustaining a craniofacial injury consistent with a fatal blow from a competing male’s tusk during a battle over access to mates. Northeast Indiana was likely a preferred mating area for this individual and may have been regionally significant for late Pleistocene mastodons. Similarities between mammutids and elephantids in herd structure, tusk dimorphism, tusk function, and the geographic component of male maturation indicate that these traits were likely inherited from a common ancestor.