2016年の古生物学

古生物学は、植物や動物の化石の調査を通じて地球上の先史時代の 生命体を研究する学問です。^[1]これには、体の化石、足跡（生痕）、巣穴、脱落した部分、化石化した糞便（糞石）、花粉化石、化学残留物の研究が含まれます。人類は数千年にわたって化石に遭遇してきたため、古生物学は科学として公式化される前も後も長い歴史を持っています。この記事では、2016年に発生した、または発表された古生物学に関連する重要な発見や出来事を記録しています。

ウィキメディア・コモンズには、古生物学における 2016 年に関連するメディアがあります。

• 以前は有櫛動物の一種であると考えられていたユンナノアスカス・ハイコウエンシスが、 Hanらによって冠状群の 中生動物として再解釈された。 （2016年）。^[9]
• フランコウィアックら（2016年）は、トルコのアンタルヤ県にある後期三畳紀（ノリアン）の露頭から発見された化石サンゴに関する研究を発表し、サンゴが光合成を行う渦鞭毛藻類と共生していたことを示唆している。 ^[10]

• A study on the histology and growth histories of the humeri of the specimens of Acanthostega recovered from the mass-death deposit of Stensiö Bjerg (Greenland) is published by Sanchez et al. (2016), who argue that even the largest individuals from this deposit are juveniles.^[144]
• Fossils of a tetrapod resembling Ichthyostega and a probable whatcheeriid-grade tetrapod are described from two Devonian (Famennian) localities from Belgium by Olive et al. (2016).^[145]
• A study on the functional significance of the interpterygoid vacuities (holes in the palate) in temnospondyls is published by Lautenschlager, Witzmann & Werneburg (2016).^[146]
• A study on the stress distribution in the skulls of Edingerella madagascariensis and Stanocephalosaurus birdi during the bite, with implications for establishing the ecological niches occupied by these temnospondyls, is published by Fortuny et al. (2016).^[147]
• A study on the anatomy, ecological niche and life history of members the population of Eocyclotosaurus appetolatus known from the Tecolotito bonebed (Moenkopi Formation; New Mexico, United States) is published by Rinehart & Lucas (2016).^[148]
• A study on the morphology of the skull and braincase of Brachydectes newberryi is published by Pardo & Anderson (2016).^[149]
• A study on the locomotor capabilities of Triadobatrachus massinoti is published by Lires, Soto & Gómez (2016).^[150]
• A revised description of the holotype of Triadobatrachus massinoti based on X-ray micro-tomography data is published by Ascarrunz et al. (2016).^[151]
• The first unambiguous frog fossil from the Jurassic of Asia (an atlantal centrum of a possible member of the genus Eodiscoglossus) is described from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) Itat Formation (Russia) by Skutschas, Martin & Krasnolutskii (2016).^[152]

• A study on the respiratory system and paleobiology of caseids is published by Lambertz et al. (2016), who argue that at least some caseids might have been predominantly aquatic and that a homologue of the mammalian diaphragm might have been present in caseids.^[170]
• A redescription of the sphenacodontian taxa Palaeohatteria and Pantelosaurus is published by Spindler (2016), who assigns both these taxa to the clade Palaeohatteriidae, but considers it likely that they represent distinct valid taxa.^[171]
• A study on the paleoneurology of non-mammaliaform therapsids is published by Benoit, Manger & Rubidge (2016), who argue that whiskers, body hair coverage and mammary glands might have been present in some non-mammaliaform therapsids.^[172]
• A study on the occurrence and size of the parietal foramen (an opening in which the pineal eye is located) in non-mammaliaform therapsids (especially non-mammaliaform eutheriodonts) known from the Karoo Supergroup of South Africa is published by Benoit et al. (2016).^[173]
• A study of life histories and growth patterns as indicated by bone tissue microstructure and body size in members of three synapsid groups that survived Permian–Triassic extinction event (dicynodonts, therocephalians and cynodonts) and one that didn't (gorgonopsians) is published by Botha-Brink et al. (2016).^[174]
• A revision of the systematics of the gorgonopsian subfamily Rubidgeinae is published by Kammerer (2016).^[175]
• A study on the anatomy and potential function of the cranial outgrowths of Choerosaurus dejageri is published by Benoit et al. (2016).^[176]
• Benoit & Jasinoski (2016) present a digital reconstruction of the lost holotype specimen of the cynodont species Scalopocynodon gracilis (a junior synonym of Procynosuchus delaharpeae).^[177]
• A study on the microstructure of the postcanine teeth of the trirachodontid cynodont Cricodon metabolus is published by Hendrickx, Abdala & Choiniere (2016).^[178]
• A description of a new specimen of Massetognathus ochagaviae collected at the Middle Triassic Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone (Brazil) is published by Pavanatto et al. (2016).^[179]
• A study comparing the growth patterns of the tritylodontid cynodont Oligokyphus and the basal mammaliaform Morganucodon is published by O'Meara & Asher (2016).^[180]
• Hair-like structures found in a coprolite recovered from the Late Permian Vyazniki site (Russia), which might represent the oldest evidence of hair in the stem group of mammals, are described by Bajdek et al. (2016).^[181]

• Traces of a wriggling, mucus-secreting animal are described from the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation (China) by Wang et al. (2016), who name a new ichnotaxon Linbotulitaenia globulus.^[191]
• New fossils of Ernietta plateauensis are described from the Ediacaran site in southern Namibia by Elliott et al. (2016).^[192]
• Embryo-like fossils are described from the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation (China) by Yin et al. (2016), who argue that at least some of these fossils represent crown-animal embryos.^[193]
• New fossil material of Oesia disjuncta is described by Nanglu et al. (2016), who interpret this species as a primitive acorn worm that inhabited the tubes previously identified as the alga Margaretia.^[194]
• A redescription of Helenodora inopinata and a study of its phylogenetic relationships is published by Murdock, Gabbott & Purnell (2016).^[195]
• Description of the anatomy of the fossil velvet worm Cretoperipatus burmiticus and a study on its phylogenetic relationships is published by de Sena Oliveira et al. (2016).^[196]
• A study on the anatomy of the mouth apparatus of the lobopodian Pambdelurion whittingtoni is published by Vinther et al. (2016), who show that its mouth apparatus was identical to the fossilized feeding apparatus described under the name Omnidens.^[197]

• Probable stromatolites are described from the 3,700-Myr-old rocks from the Isua supracrustal belt (Greenland) by Nutman et al. (2016);^[288] however, Allwood et al. (2018) subsequently argue that these putative stromatolites as more likely to be structures of non-biological origin.^[289]
• Exceptionally large, organic, smooth-walled, coccoidal microfossils are described from the 2.52 Ga Gamohaan Formation (South Africa) by Czaja, Beukes & Osterhout (2016), who interpret them as fossils of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria similar to members of the modern genus Thiomargarita.^[290]
• Macroscopic fossils up to 30 cm long and nearly 8 cm wide are described from the 1,56-billion-year-old Gaoyuzhuang Formation (Yanshan area, North China) by Zhu et al. (2016), who interpret them as probable fossils of benthic multicellular eukaryotes of size that is unprecedentedly large for eukaryotes older than the Ediacaran Period.^[291]
• Organic-walled microfossils (at least some of which are eukaryote fossils) with holes in the walls similar to those formed by predatory protists in the walls of their prey to consume the contents inside are described from the 780–740 million-year-old Chuar Group (Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA) by Porter (2016).^[292]
• Tubular microfossils showing similarities to modern coenocytic green and yellow-green algae are described from the ~2.8 to 2.7 Ga lacustrine deposits in South Africa by Kaźmierczak et al. (2016).^[293]
• Soft-bodied discoidal specimens resembling Aspidella are described from the Ediacaran Cerro Negro Formation (Argentina) by Arrouy et al. (2016).^[294]