2026 in paleomammalogy

Proboscidean research

• A study on the morphology of the astragalus and calcaneus in extant and extinct proboscideans, providing evidence of morphological changes of ankles bones related to increase of the body mass and evolution of the columnar posture of members of the group, is published by Tetaert et al. (2026).^[4]
• A study on humeri of extant and extinct proboscideans, providing evidence of different impact of compressive loading on humeri representing slender and robust morphotypes, is published by Wagner, Chatar & Hennekam (2026).^[5]
• Semprebon, Sanders & Uttecht (2026) reconstruct diets and habitats of Moeritherium and Phiomia on the basis of their tooth wear, interpreting the former taxon as feeding on soft vegetation and likely frequenting aquatic habitats, and interpreting the latter taxon as likely living in a terrestrial forest or woodland environment.^[6]
• Alquézar-Blesa et al. (2026) study the feeding behaviors of Miocene Gomphotherium and Prodeinotherium from Artesilla and Tarazona (Spain), reporting evidence from the study of tooth wear indicative of a greater degree of dietary flexibility than indicated by tooth morphology, including evidence of grass consumption.^[7]
• Bader, Gasparik & Segesdi (2026) compare the microanatomy of femur of Deinotherium giganteum and mammoths, reporting evidence of differences that might be linked to distinct weight-bearing adaptations.^[8]
• Description of new fossil material of Mammut shansiense from the Yushe Basin (China) and a study on the phylogenetic affinities of the species is published by Zhang et al. (2026), who recover the studied species as closely related to the American mastodon.^[9]
• Sanders, Ji & Jablonski (2026) describe fossil material of Stegodon zhaotongensis from the Miocene strata of the Zhaotong Formation at the Shuitangba site (Yunnan, China), reaffirm the validity of the species, and interpret its anatomical features as consistent with origination of stegodonts from stegolophodonts in Asia.^[10]
• Liu et al. (2026) report the first discovery of fossil material of Stegodon from the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene strata from the Shandong Province (China), referred to the species Stegodon chiai.^[11]
• A study on the chemical composition of teeth of Gomphotherium angustidens from the Miocene (Langhian) strata from Quinta da Farinheira (Portugal), providing evidence of seasonal changes in the diet of the studied proboscidean and probable evidence of geophagia during fixed times of the year, is published by Coimbra et al. (2026).^[12]
• Han et al. (2026) report the discovery of a molar of a member of the genus Gomphotherium from the Miocene strata of the Jinsu Formation (North Korea), extending known geographical distribution of members of this genus in Asia.^[13]
• New fossil material of Notiomastodon platensis is described from the Lujanian strata of the La Chumbiada Member of the Lujan Formation (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina) by Prado et al. (2026).^[14]
• Evidence from the study of strontium, carbon and oxygen isotopic composition of remains of Notiomastodon platensis from Pleistocene sites in the states of Pernambuco, Paraíba and Sergipe (Brazil), indicative of a predominantly C₄-based diet of the studied individuals and indicating that the studied sample included both sedentary and mobile individuals, is presented by Cruz et al. (2026).^[15]
• The first complete skull of a member of the genus Cuvieronius (C. cf. tropicus) from North America reported to date is described from the Pleistocene (Irvingtonian) strata of the Camp Rice Formation (New Mexico, United States) by Houde et al. (2026), who argue that North/Central American and South American members of the genus Cuvieronius likely represent two distinct cryptic species.^[16]
• González-Guarda et al. (2026) reconstruct the environment of late Pleistocene Notiomastodon platensis and Cuvieronius hyodon from Ecuador on the basis of their tooth wear and carbon isotopic composition of their tooth enamel, interpreted as indicative of predominantly open and dry habitats.^[17]
• Kumar (2026) reports the first discovery of fossil material of Anancus sivalensis from Indian Siwaliks, recovered from the Pliocene Tatrot Formation in Himachal Pradesh.^[18]
• Lambert (2026) reevaluates the affinites of "Platybelodon" barnumbrowni from the Late Miocene of Nebraska (United States), transferring the species to the genus Protanancus (the first record of the genus from North America), as well as describing "Serbelodon" burnhami and an unnamed taxon from the Bone Valley of Florida as sharing affinities with Protanancus.^[19]
• Armaroli et al. (2026) reconstruct the ecology and habitat use of straight-tusked elephants from the Neumark-Nord site (Germany) on the basis of the study of the strontium isotopic composition of their remains and on the basis of proteomic analysis, reporting evidence indicating that the studied elephant assemblage included both male and female individuals from geographically separated populations that migrated to the lake basins of Neumark-Nord, and evidence of seasonal mobility of the studied individuals, including probable evidence of two male individuals dwelling in mountainous areas within 300 km of Neumark-Nord.^[20]
• Farrell et al. (2026) identify fossil material of a straight-tusked elephant from the mid-Pleistocene North Bridge Acheulian site north of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Israel), and interpret its tooth wear and isotopic composition of its tooth enamel, coupled with the studies of local palynological assemblages and climatic reconstructions, as indicative of a mixed-feeding strategy of the studied individual, as well as indicating that it lived in a mosaic woodland-wetland habitat with a Mediterranean climate.^[21]
• Kusaka et al. (2026) provide the radiocarbon ages of fossils of Palaeoloxodon naumanni from Honshu and Shikoku (Japan), determine the last appearance date of the species to be 36,400–35,700 calibrated years before present, and interpret the fossil record as indicative of short coexistence of the species with Upper Paleolithic humans and its likely extinction at 35,000-33,000 calibrated years before present.^[22]
• Evidence from the study of the long bones of adult Palaeoloxodon tiliensis and juvenile Palaeoloxodon falconeri, indicating that bones of the former species were not scaled-down version of bones of its mainland ancestors but rather included a combination of ancestral traits, adaptations associated with a graviportal lifestyle and juvenile-like characteristics, is presented by Bader, Göhlich & Houssaye (2026).^[23]
• Evidence from the study of the straight-tusked elephant specimen from Middle Pleistocene site of Contrada Monticelli (Apulia, Italy) and other specimens of straight-tusked elephants and Mammuthus meridionalis from the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of Italy, indicating that the majority of purported morphological characters differentiating Mammuthus and Palaeoloxodon are not reliable when intraspecific variability is taken into consideration, is presented by Stefanelli et al. (2026).^[24]
• A study on the anatomy and life history of the woolly mammoth specimen from Niederweningen (Switzerland) that was the first scientifically described perinatal mammoth individual is published by Scarborough et al. (2026).^[25]
• Moreland et al. (2026) recover ancient DNA from mammoth ivory from the Hohle Fels cave (Germany), and report evidence of presence of mammoth specimens from multiple distinct lineages in the studied sample.^[26]
• Zanina et al. (2026) reconstruct the environment and diet of the woolly mammoth calf specimen "Yana" from the Batagay section (Sakha, Russia) on the basis of the study of contents of its gastrointestinal tract and the material found between its forelimbs.^[27]
• A new, nearly complete skeleton of a woolly mammoth, identified as a male aged approximately 30–40 years, is described from the latest Pleistocene strata from the Taymyr Peninsula (Russia) by Petrova et al. (2026).^[28]
• Moots et al. (2026) determine sex of 521 woolly mammoth specimens on the basis of the study of ancient DNA, reporting evidence indicating that mammoths from bone accumulation sites were predominantly female, while mammoths from other depositional settings were predominantly male, and interpret these findings as suggestive of anthropogenic origin of mammoth bone accumulations and of preferential targeting of mammoth females by humans.^[29]
• Hannold et al. (2026) reconstruct the diets of pygmy mammoths from Northern Channel Islands and Columbian mammoths from Rancho La Brea and coastal Santa Barbara in southern California on the basis of stable isotopes in tooth enamel.^[30]
• Evidence from the study of tooth enamel of Columbian mammoths from 14 sites in the Central Basin of Mexico, interpreted as indicative of a generalist diet with varying proportions of C₃ and C₄ plants, is presented by Rodríguez-Franco et al. (2026).^[31]
• Rodríguez-Franco et al. (2026) report evidence of dental anomalies in Columbian mammoth specimens from 15 localities in the Basin of Mexico.^[32]
• Evidence from the study of carbon, oxygen and strontium isotope composition of Columbian mammoth remains from the Colby Site (Wyoming, United States), indicative of the studied mammoths feeding mainly on C₃ plants and having a range of less than 250 km, is presented by Doering, Mackie & Herron (2026), who interpret the assemblage of mammoth remains from the studied site as more likely resulting from multiple hunting episoded than from a single massive one.^[33]
• Evidence indicating that morphology of the astragalus of Quaternary elephantids was influenced by their body size to a greater degree than by their phylogenetic affinities is presented by Fidalgo et al. (2026).^[34]

Sirenia research

• Saha, Bhardwaj & Bajpai (2026) study the restructuring of the sirenian skull throughout the evolutionary history of the group on the basis of data from extant and fossil taxa.^[36]
• Wagner et al. (2026) provide a methodology for quantification of the degree of pachyostosis in ribs and vertebrae of sirenians on the basis of the study of extant and extinct taxa.^[37]
• Pérez-Ramos et al. (2026) present a virtual reconstruction of the vertebral column of Pezosiren portelli.^[38]
• New fossil material of sirenians with dugongid affinities, associated with an invertebrate assemblage that might be indicative of presence of seagrass habitats, is described from the Oligocene strata of the Maniyara Fort Formation (India) by Joshi et al. (2026).^[39]
• Shinmura & Sawada (2026) reconstruct diets of sirenians from Miocene to Pliocene marine sediments in Hokkaido (Japan) on the basis of stable carbon isotope ratios of fatty acids and sterols extracted from their bones, providing evidence of Metaxytherium feeding on seagrass and evidence of feeding of Dusisiren and the Takikawa sea cow on seaweed.^[40]

Miscellaneous afrotherian research

• Alcalá et al. (2026) describe new fossil material of Pliohyrax graecus from the Miocene (Vallesian) strata from the La Roma 2 site (Province of Teruel, Spain), representing the most complete hyracoid record from the Iberian Peninsula reported to date.^[43]
• Raynaud et al. (2026) interpret the composition of the Eocene plant assemblage from the Bultu-Zile site (Meryemdere Formation; Turkey), reconstructed on the basis of study of the palynoflora from this site, as indicating that embrithopods from the site lived in a swamp-freshwater environment, representing one of the first embrithopod records outside mangrove-dominated ecosystems.^[44]
• Evidence from the study isotopic composition of tooth enamel of Eocene embrithopods from Balkanatolia, interpreted as indicative of the studied mammals living in fully terrestrial rather than semi-aquatic environment, is presented by Robert et al. (2026).^[45]

Primate research

• Evidence of gradual expansion of the frontal lobe during the evolutionary history of primates, as well as evidence of rapid expansion of nonfrontal neocortical regions that might have been linked to enhanced visual processing in primates, is presented by Kay et al. (2026).^[54]
• Cartmill & Brown (2026) review the history of the visual-predation theory, and argue that it represents the best available explanation for the origin of primates.^[55]
• A study on the morphology of molar teeth of extant and extinct members of Euarchonta, providing evidence of evolution of morphological changes associated with increased herbivory at the base of Euprimates, is published by Bradley-Cronkwright et al. (2026).^[56]
• Marigó et al. (2026) review new discoveries and main advances in the study of Paleogene primates from Spain from late 2013 to 2025.^[57]
• One of the oldest euprimate petrosal bones reported to date, likely belonging to Marcgodinotius indicus, is described from the Eocene strata from the Vastan Lignite Mine (India) by Silcox et al. (2026).^[58]
• Alfieri et al. (2026) reconstruct the locomotor behavior of Malagasy Quaternary lemurs on the basis of the study of their humeral and femoral trabecular architecture, reporting evidence of suspensory adaptations not only in sloth lemurs, but also in Megaladapis edwardsi.^[59]
• Robinson et al. (2026) report evidence from the study of carbon and oxygen stable isotope compositions of mammal fossils from the Pinturas Formation (Argentina) indicative of presence of a diverse range of habitats in Patagonia during the Miocene, and interpret the diversity of the primate assemblage from the studied formation as likely linked to habitat diversity.^[60]
• Cooke et al. (2026) report the first discovery of mandibular remains of Stirtonia victoriae from the La Victoria Formation (Colombia), and interpret their anatomy as indicative of leaf-eating adaptations of the studied monkey.^[61]
• Urciuoli et al. (2026) determine the phylogenetic relationships of early members of Catarrhini on the basis of the study of the semicircular canal and vestibule shape in Saadanius, Pliobates, Ekembo and Victoriapithecus, interpret Saadanius as most likely to be a stem catarrhine that evolved ossified tubular ectotympanic independently from crown catarrhines, and interpret pliopithecoids as most likely to be stem catarrhines closer to the crown group than Saadanius.^[62]
• Arias-Martorell et al. (2026) report evidence of similarities of shape of the radial head of Pliobates cataloniae and extant apes, and interpret Pliobates as better adapted to climbing than to behaviors involving forelimb-dominated suspension.^[63]
• Arias-Martorell et al. (2026) compare the shape of the distal part of the humerus of Pliobates cataloniae and other extinct and extant simians, and interpret Pliobates as unlikely to perform acrobatic suspensory behaviors seen in extant gibbons.^[64]
• McGechie et al. (2026) interpret elevated variability of shape of pliopithecoid molars from the Miocene strata from the Rudabánya II site (Hungary) as unlikely be caused by sexual dimorphism.^[65]
• Pickford & de Matos (2026) revise the fossil record of at least three assemblages of Old World monkeys from the Humpata Plateau (Angola), including possible record of a mandrill-like monkey from the middle Pliocene assemblage from Tchiua.^[66]
• A study on the composition of the Old World monkey assemblage (dominated by Colobus sp. and Chlorocebus sp.) from the Pleistocene Markaytoli site (Ethiopia) is published by Smail et al. (2026).^[67]
• Pallas (2026) identifies fossil mandibles from the Pleistocene sites Asbole (Ethiopia) and Koobi Fora (Kenya) belonging to members of the tribe Colobini, including a taxon with similarities to members of the genus Colobus and a taxon with similarities to members of the Piliocolobus-Procolobus lineage.^[68]
• Evidence from the study of tooth wear of Theropithecus oswaldi from the Pliocene strata from Makapansgat and from the Pleistocene strata from Swartkrans (South Africa), indicative of different dietary behaviors of Pliocene and Pleistocene members of the species (with the diet of the Pliocene specimens including more mechanically resistant food), is presented by L'Engle Williams, Schmidt & Remy (2026).^[69]
• Hidalgo-Trujillo et al. (2026) report evidence from the study of tooth wear indicative of dietary differentiation of extinct papionins from the Turkana Basin.^[70]
• Evidence of similarity of molar morphology to those of members of the genus Papio, and likely evidence of opportunistic feeding strategies, is reported in a specimen of Paradolichopithecus aff. arvernensis from the Dafnero-3 site (Greece) by Plastiras et al. (2026);^[71] Koutalis et al. (2026) present virtually reconstructed models of the face of the same individual.^[72]
• Choudhary et al. (2026) provided new paleomagnetic and stratigraphic data for the Ramnagar region of India, re-dating its primate-yielding localities to 13.03–11.59 Ma and extending the known chronological range of the primates like Sivapithecus, Kapi and Ramadapis by approximately 200,000 years.^[73]
• Evidence from the study of the cranial endocast of Rudapithecus hungaricus, indicative of presence of sulcal patterns similar to those seen in gorillas, is presented by Assance, Silcox & Begun (2026).^[74]
• Spassov et al. (2026) report the discovery of a nearly complete femur of cf. Graecopithecus from the Miocene strata from the Azmaka-6 locality near Chirpan (Bulgaria), sharing morphological traits with both quadrupeds and bipeds, and interpreted as indicative of a transitional locomotor repertoire including both terrestrial quadrupedalism and an early form of facultative bipedalism.^[75]
• Evidence from the study of teeth and the bony labyrinth of Oreopithecus bambolii, interpreted as indicating that the studied primate was more likely to be a derived stem hominoid than a close relative of Miocene apes from Europe or gibbons, is presented by Urciuoli et al. (2026).^[76]
• Jansma & Locke (2026) interpret Xenopithecus koruensis as a valid basal hominoid taxon distinct from Proconsul africanus.^[77]
• Williams et al. (2026) study the anatomy of ulna and femur or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, interpreted as indicative of presence of adaptations to bipedalism in spite of similarities in size and geometric morphometric shape to bones of chimpanzees.^[78]
• De Jager et al. (2026) study the frequency, position, and variability of cortical sulcal imprints in endocasts of extant chimpanzees and bonobos, providing a comparative resource for the studies of the brain evolution based on hominin fossils.^[79]
• Dunbar (2026) reevaluates data from the study of Deaner & Nunn (1999),^[80] finds evidence of changes in brain size following increases in body size in the evolution of primates but in a more complicated way that suggested by the original brain lag hypothesis, with an increase in body size followed by a progressively greater increase in brain size, and finds evidence of such evolution of brain and body size in hominins.^[81]

General paleoanthropology

• Cerrito, Burkart & van Schaik (2026) review the techniques used to extract information on life history from hominin fossils.^[82]
• Towle (2026) reviews longstanding issues in the systematics of hominins, including non-monophyly of at least the genus Australopithecus and mosaic trait distribution among hominin taxa, and proposes to subsume the genera Paranthropus and Australopithecus within the genus Homo.^[83]
• Begun (2026) reviews the fossil record of African apes and humans, and argues that the lack of hominin fossils from Africa from the interval between 13.5 and 6–7 million years ago might not simply be the result of incompleteness of the fossil record, and is potentially consistent with the origin of hominins in Eurasia and their dispersal into Africa after 7 million years ago.^[84]
• Gardner et al. (2026) study changes of body size throughout the evolutionary history of hominins, and interpret their finding as consistent with marked body mass increase in members of the genus Homo other than Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis.^[85]
• A study on the morphological diversity of the femur and the humerus in extant hominids is published by Aramendi (2026), who interprets her findings as indicative of variable utility of different long bones for taxonomic indentification of hominin fossils, and as indicating that some of the variability observed in isolated or fragmentary hominin fossils might not be caused by presence of more than one taxon in the studied fossil material.^[86]
• Evidence indicating that proximity in principal component analysis in the studies of morphological variation is not necessarily indicative of close phylogenetic affinities of fossil hominins is presented by Raskin et al. (2026).^[87]
• Evidence indicating that hominins repeatedly inhabited areas of Africa with climate suitable for both cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis during their evolutionary history is presented by Trájer (2026).^[88]
• Evidence from the study of ethnohistorical and ethnographic records of modern endurance pursuit hunters, indicating that optimization of subsistence efficiency and signaling of hunting prowess were likely the primary selective pressures in the evolution of a running gait of early hominins, is presented by Winterhalder & Morin (2026).^[89]
• Joordens & Schagatay (2026) argue that exceptional stamina and aerobic endurance of humans compared to other apes might be a result of underwater foraging and changes in cardiorespiratory physiology related to development of endurance breath-hold diving by coastal hominin populations.^[90]
• Hunter et al. (2026) compare the carpal morphology of apes (including fossil hominins and modern humans), providing evidence of hominins and extant African apes sharing morphological features of carpal morphology that are likely linked to knuckle walking, and argue that human wrist evolved from an African ape-like wrist.^[91]
• Evidence from the study of extant Japanese macaques, indicating that the initial shift from quadrupedalism to bipedalism in the hominin evolution might have involved a shift of the primary action of the gluteus medius without any required morphological change, is presented by Shitara et al. (2026).^[92]
• Sekhavati, Prang & Strait (2026) study the relationships between hominin foot morphology and environmental context throughout the evolutionary history of hominins, and link the emergence of hominin bipedalism to increases of aridity in Central and Eastern Africa.^[93]
• Carlson et al. (2026) determine relative limb strength in Australopithecus and early members of the genus Homo, interpreted as indicative of frequent arboreal behavior in Australopithecus, as well as indicative of departure of hominins from arboreality by ∼1.8 million years ago.^[94]
• Kurki & Wall-Scheffler (2026) study the variation of pelvic canal dimensions in extant humans and extinct hominins, finding no evidence of a single trajectory of evolution of hominin pelvic shape.^[95]
• Komza, Viola & Schroeder (2026) interpret the evolution of the morphology of hominin midfoot as affected by selection for bipedalism in the lateral side in early bipeds such as Ardipithecus ramidus and shaped by a broad range of evolutionary processes in later hominins.^[96]
• Evidence from the study of the organization of mineral nanocrystals in teeth of extant and extinct hominins and other primates, indicating that enamel nanocrystal misorientation in hominin teeth changed in conjunction with dietary shifts of members of the human lineage (including the introduction of meat and agricultural products into their diet), is presented by Gilbert et al. (2026).^[97]
• Gat, Subsol & Braga (2026) compare the development of the cortical bone in the mandible during the early ontogeny of extant chimpanzees and humans and in fossil hominins, linking the robust morphology of the mandible of Paranthropus to a distinct developmental trajectory.^[98]
• Orr et al. (2026) provide a catalog of isolated postcranial remains of hominins from Drimolen (South Africa) collected between 1994 and 2015.^[99]
• New postcranial fossil material of hominins is reported from the Kromdraai fossil site (South Africa) by DeSilva et al. (2026).^[100]
• Alemseged et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of Paranthropus from the Mille-Logya research area determined to be between 2.5 and 2.9-million-years-old, representing the first record of the genus in the Afar region of Ethiopia and one of the oldest records of a member of the genus reported to date.^[101]
• Rak & Kimbel (2026) interpret the prognathism observed in the specimen KNM WT 17000 as a derived rather than primitive trait, and interpret Australopithecus/Paranthropus aethiopicus as the probable sister taxon of Australopithecus/Paranthropus boisei.^[102]
• Critical reevaluation of the study of Zanolli et al. (2025) that placed the hominin specimen SK 15 from the Swartkrans cave (South Africa) in a previously unrecognized species of Paranthropus (P. capensis)^[103] is published by Clarke & Pickering (2026).^[104]
• Pickering & Clarke (2026) reevaluate claims of affinities of the hominin specimen SK 54 from the Swartkrans cave with members of the genus Homo made Braga et al. by (2023)^[105] and Martin et al. (2024),^[106] and argue that the specimen is more likely to be an individual of Paranthropus robustus.^[107]
• Evidence from the study of internal bone structure of tibiae and femora of Paranthropus robustus from Swartkrans and Australopithecus from Sterkfontein (South Africa), interpreted as indicative of different locomotor repertoires and likely distinct ecological niches of the studied hominins, is presented by Cazenave et al. (2026).^[108]
• O'Hara et al. (2026) report evidence of rapid evolution of the morphology of premolar teeth of Paranthropus robustus, interpreted as likely related to dietary pressures.^[109]
• Evidence of a comparable range of stress values on the pelvic floor of australopithecines and humans during birth is presented by Frémondière et al. (2026).^[110]
• Beaudet et al. (2026) present a digital reconstruction of the face of the Australopithecus specimen Stw 573 ("Little Foot").^[111]
• Hershkovitz et al. (2026) report evidence of greater similarity of the vertebral apophyseal ring of Lucy (and likely spinal biomechanics of the studied individual) to those of extant African apes than to those of modern humans, and interpret this finding as indicative of emergence of fully modern human gait later in the hominin evolution.^[112]
• Hatala et al. (2026) describe approximately 1.43-million-years-old hominin footprints from northern Kenya produced by a group that included multiple adult males, preserving a morphology similar to footprints attributed to Paranthropus boisei, but produced by hominins larger than known representatives of that species.^[113]
• Evidence indicating that the evolution cranial morphological variation in members of the genus Homo was primarily influenced by selective constraints, their releases and by stabilizing selection rather than by gradual directional selection is presented by Hubbe & Harvati (2026).^[114]
• Blasi-Toccacceli et al. (2026) describe fossil material of a 1.84-million-years-old member of the genus Homo from the Shungura Formation (Ethiopia), including the oldest well-preserved shoulder and arm bones of a member of this genus, interpreted as indicative of reduction of use of arms in arboreal locomotion early in the evolution of Homo.^[115]
• The most complete skeleton of Homo habilis reported to date is described from the upper Burgi Member of the Koobi Fora Formation (Kenya) by Grine et al. (2026).^[116]
• Cofran, Hurst & Hawks (2026) present a virtual reconstruction of the brain endocast of Homo naledi, providing evidence of presence of a combination of ancestral and derived features in the brain of the studied hominin.^[117]
• Madupe et al. (2026) determine the sex of at least 20 individuals of Homo naledi from the Rising Star cave system (Cradle of Humankind, South Africa) on the basis of proteomic analysis of tooth enamel, finding no evidence of male markers in the studied sample.^[118]
• Delagnes et al. (2026) study the mobility of Early Pleistocene hominins from the Lower Omo Valley (Shungura Formation, Ethiopia), providing evidence of transport of quartz for the production of Oldowan stone tools from the alluvial fans of the Hamar Range, over 10 km from the sites preserving the stone tools, located in areas that lacked stone material but had rich faunal assemblages.^[119]
• Evidence from the study of Oldowan tools from the Shungura Formation, indicating that different sediment types produced characteristic wear of the studied tools that can be distinguished wear caused by other types of sediment and from anthropogenic use-wear, is presented by Galland et al. (2026).^[120]
• Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. (2026) report the discovery of a new site (Emiliano Aguirre Korongo) at Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) preserving proboscidean remains with bone modifications interpreted as the authors as evidence of butchery assisted by stone tools, and interpret the fossil record of megafaunal bone modifications at Olduvai Gorge as consistent with more frequent and widespread megafaunal butchery after 1.8 million years ago, roughly coinciding with the replacement of Oldowan industries by Acheulean ones.^[121]
• Evidence from the study of burnt bones of small mammals from the Acheulean deposits from the Wonderwerk Cave (South Africa), indicative of repeated use of fire by Early Pleistocene hominins, is presented by Marin-Monfort et al. (2026).^[122]
• Evidence from the study of an approximately 1.6 million years old assemblage of associated hominin fossils and butchered fauna from the KBS Member of the Koobi Fora Formation, indicative of consistent foraging strategies of early Homo across time and in different environments, is presented by Forrest et al. (2026).^[123]
• Campo-Gómez et al. (2026) determine prey carrying capacity and total biomass of the Early Pleistocene large mammal community available to hominins from the Sima del Elefante site (Spain), interpreted as capable of sustaining hominin groups of low density.^[124]
• Wang et al. (2026) study the morphology of lumbar vertebrae of immature individuals of Homo erectus and Australopithecus sediba from Georgia, Kenya and South Africa, reporting evidence of establishment of vertebral traits related to bipedal locomotion early in hominin ontogeny and evolution.^[125]
• Evidence indicating that Early to Middle Pleistocene hominins from the northern Indian Subcontinent lived in a mosaic environment dominated by savannas is presented by Kaur et al. (2026).^[126]
• Tu et al. (2026) determine the three crania of Homo erectus from the Yunxian site (Hubei, China) to be approximately 1.77 million years old, representing the oldest securely dated hominin fossils from eastern Asia reported to date.^[127]
• Gousset et al. (2026) study the phylogenetic relationships of Homo luzonensis, and interpret the studied hominin as most likely originating from an Asian population of Homo erectus, resulting in evolutionary reversals in an insular context and likely caused by living in tropical environment.^[128]
• A study on the technological characteristics of the stone tools from the Rizal Archaeological Site (Philippines) is published by Guibert et al. (2026).^[129]
• Li et al. (2026) report a new Lower Paleolithic site with stone tools and animal remains (the Daanmiao site) in the Bailong River valley (Gansu, China) providing evidence of hominin occupation of western Qinling Mountain Ranges approximately 900,000 years ago, and evidence of more favorable habitat for early hominins in the studied area than in other parts of North China during the Mid-Pleistocene Transition.^[130]
• Shao et al. (2026) determine two hominin crania from the Hulu Cave (China) to likely fall within a similar chronological range and date them to Marine Isotope Stage 16.^[131]
• Fu et al. (2026) recover ancient enamel proteins from individuals of Homo erectus from the Middle Pleistocene Zhoukoudian, Hexian and Sunjiadong sites (China), reporting the discovery of an amino acid variant that was previously identified in Denisovans, and argue that super-archaic introgressed DNA identified in Denisovan genome as likely introduced through contact with populations related to Late Middle Pleistocene H. erectus from East Asia.^[132]
• Evidence from taphonomic analyses of remains of Stegodon from Liang Bua (Flores, Indonesia), indicating that Komodo dragons had primary access to Stegodon carcasses and that Homo floresiensis likely scavenged on low-utility elements left by Komodo dragons, is presented by Veatch et al. (2026), who find no evidence of intentional use of fire by Homo floresiensis.^[133]
• A study on the pelvis of the holotype individual of Homo floresiensis, reporting evidence of similarities to members of the genus Homo consistent with human-like bipedalism, is published by Lewton et al. (2026).^[134]
• Kaifu et al. (2026) report evidence of marked deformational plagiocephaly in individuals of Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis, and interpret it as likely linked to presence of modern human-like helpless infancy in the studied hominins.^[135]
• Evidence from the study of charcoal from the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site (Israel), interpreted as indicative of habitual gathering of firewood by early Middle Pleistocene hominins (likely from available driftwood), is presented by Allué et al. (2026).^[136]
• Evidence of a consistent pattern of basalt acquisition by the Middle Pleistocene hominins for the production of Acheulian tools from the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site, including evidence for different mode of procurement of basalt for the production of handaxes and cleavers, is presented by Golan, Ben Dor & Goren-Inbar (2026).^[137]
• Evidence of selective procurement of flint by Middle Pleistocene hominins from the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site, as well as evidence of stability of their procurement preferences throughout 50,000 years, is presented by Ekshtain et al. (2026).^[138]
• A study on animals remains from the Caijiagou-C site in the Nihewan Basin (China), providing evidence of systematic processing of ungulate carcasses by early Middle Pleistocene hominins that involved diverse butchery stages, is published by Du et al. (2026).^[139]
• Evidence supporting the reliability of dating of hominin traces from the Quesang site (China) described by Zhang et al. (2021)^[140] to the Middle Pleistocene is presented by Gao et al. (2026).^[141]
• A study on Acheulean tools from the Revilleja de Valparaíso (Spain), interpreted as indicative of presence of diverse technological traditions with distinct origins in Western Europe around 700,000 years ago, is published by García-Vadillo et al. (2026).^[142]
• Approximately 430,000-years-old wooden tools are identified from the Marathousa site in the Megalopolis Basin (Greece) by Milks et al. (2026).^[143]
• The conclusions about age of the Petralona skull from the study of Falguères et al. (2025)^[144] are contested by Kostopoulos & Lazaridis (2026)^[145] and reaffirmed by Falguères et al. (2026).^[146]
• Martín-Francés et al. (2026) interpret the molar wear in the Sima de los Huesos hominins as suggestive of a mixed diet including similar proportions of meat and plant foods.^[147]
• Parfitt & Bello (2026) describe a 480,000-years-old knapping tool made on an elephant bone from the Boxgrove Palaeolithic site (United Kingdom), representing the oldest case of an elephant bone being used as a raw material in Europe reported to date.^[148]
• Nicoud et al. (2026) study the chronology of bifacial occurrences from Valle Giumentina (Italy), reporting evidence of shifts in the biface structure within two levels from Marine Isotope Stage 12, and interpret evidence from the studied site as consistent with repeated reinventions of the biface in Europe during the Lower Paleolithic.^[149]
• A study on the Acheulean handaxe variability in southeastern Britain, interpreted as consistent with presence of distinct regional cultural groups during the Marine Isotope Stage 11, is published by White et al. (2026).^[150]
• García-Martínez et al. (2026) provide the first proteomics-based sex identification of a hominin tooth from the Middle Pleistocene of western Europe, using the analysis of the presence of amelogenin to attribute a hominin molar from the Middle Pleistocene site of Ruidera (Spain) to a male individual.^[151]
• Rosas et al. (2026) review different models of evolution of European hominins during the Middle Pleistocene (including evolutionary models including all European population in the lineage ancestral to Neanderthals and the models proposing coexistence of multiple contemporaneous lineages in Europe) and the analytical frameworks supporting these models.^[152]
• García-Martínez et al. (2026) report the discovery of a parietal bone from a new paleoanthropological site Ruidera (Spain), providing evidence of variability of cranial morphology of Middle Pleistocene hominins.^[153]
• Yue et al. (2026) report evidence of production of diverse stone tools at the Xigou site (Henan, China) between 160,000 and 72,000 years ago, including evidence of well-organised core reduction strategies, production of diverse small flake-based tools, and hafted implements.^[154]
• The earliest evidence of use of sophisticated, systematic centripetal flaking systems in eastern Asia known to date is reported from the late Middle Pleistocene Lingjing site (Henan, China) by Zhao et al. (2026).^[155]
• Siemssen et al. (2026) report evidence of antibacterial properties of birch tar produced with methods used in Europe during the Middle Paleolithic.^[156]
• Guil-Guerrero (2026) argues that consumption of fly larvae by Neanderthals postulated by Beasley, Lesnik & Speth (2025)^[157] does not by itself explain nitrogen isotope enrichment observed in Neanderthal collagen, interpreted as more likely to be primarily caused by targeted hunting and consumption of megafauna by Neanderthals.^[158]
• Evidence from the study of bone microanatomy of Neanderthal remains from Sesselfelsgrotte (Germany), indicative of an overall similar growth trajectory of Neanderthals and modern humans during their early life, is presented by Miszkiewicz et al. (2026), who also report the presence of probably pathological interglobular dentin in the studied fossil material that might be evidence of a metabolic bone disease.^[159]
• Zollikofer et al. (2026) compare the morphology of Neanderthal pelves from Sima de las Palomas (Spain) and Dederiyeh Cave (Syria) with those of modern humans, reporting evidence of morphological similarities of pelvic regions associated with childbirth, as well as evidence of differences in pelvic regions associated with locomotion.^[160]
• Sorrentino et al. (2026) report evidence of presence of overall more robust calcaneus in Neanderthals compared to modern humans, with the closest similarity to calcanei of highly mobile, unshod modern human groups.^[161]
• Verheijen et al. (2026) study evidence of Neanderthal activity in faunal remains from the Lehringen site (Germany), reporting evidence of defleshing of a straight-tusked elephant when its carcass was in fresh state and evidence of butchery of a beaver, bear and aurochs.^[162]
• Evidence indicating that exploitation of shellfish by Neanderthals occupying the Cave of Los Aviones (Spain) happened primarily during the colder months of the year is presented by García-Escárzaga et al. (2026).^[163]
• A study on Neanderthal teeth from the Chagyrskaya Cave in the Altai Mountains (Russia), indicating that the studied sample overall falls within the known Neanderthal phenotypic variability but also preserves specific morphological traits, is published by Gicqueau et al. (2026).^[164]
• Massilani et al. (2026) present a high-quality genome of an approximately 110,000-years-old Neanderthal individual from the Denisova Cave (Russia), providing evidence of a closer relationship of the studied individual to a 120,000-years-old Neanderthal from the same cave than to a 80,000-years-old individual from the Chagyrskaya Cave or to European Neanderthals, evidence of gene flow from Denisovans in both Neanderthals from the Denisova Cave, and evidence of differentiation between Altai and European Neanderthals comparable to that of the most differentiated populations of modern humans.^[165]
• Zubova et al. (2026) report evidence of deliberate invasive dental caries intervention in a 59,000-years-old Neanderthal molar from the Chagyrskaya Cave.^[166]
• Evidence from the study of rhinocerotid remains from Middle Paleolithic sites in France and Spain, interpreted as consistent with use of rhinoceros teeth as tools (including soft hammers and anvils) by Neanderthals, is presented by Sanz-Royo et al. (2026).^[167]
• Picin et al. (2026) report new mitogenomes of at least 7 Neanderthal individuals from the Stajnia Cave (Poland), interpreted as likely dating to Marine Isotope Stage 5, find that the studied individual carried mitochondrial DNA lineages related to those Western Europe and the northern Caucasus, and interpret their findings as possible evidence of a widespread mitochondrial DNA lineage that was subsequently replaced by the mtDNA found in late Neanderthals.^[168]
• Evidence of exploitation of European pond turtles by Neanderthals occupying the Neumark-Nord site (Germany) during the Last Interglacial is presented by Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al. (2026).^[169]
• Palancar et al. (2026) provide evidence of a clear morphological distinction between axes of Neanderthals and modern humans on the basis of the study of a Neanderthal axis from the Sidrón Cave (Spain).^[170]
• Evidence from the study of metacarpal remains from the Sidrón Cave indicative of differences of metacarpal morphology of Neanderthals and modern humans is presented by Rosas et al. (2026).^[171]
• Rodrigo et al. (2026) provide evidence from the study of animal remains from the Fumane Cave (Italy) indicative of a structured subsistence strategy of Neanderthals occupying the site, including processing of carcasses at kill locations and selective transport of high-yield portions of the carcasses into the cave for secondary processing.^[172]
• Burke et al. (2026) determine the distribution of habitats suitable for Neanderthals and modern humans in Europe during stadial and interstadial events of Marine Isotope Stage 3, providing evidence of a shift but not complete disappearance of habitats suitable for Neanderthals as a result of climate changes, weak connectivity between optimal regions for Neanderthals, and overlaps between optimal regions of the two hominins.^[173]
• A Neanderthal infant assigned to the 6- to 14-month age range, providing evidence of rapid somatic growth in early life of Neanderthals, is described from the Amud Cave (Israel) by Been et al. (2026).^[174]
• Blinkhorn et al. (2026) study the variability of Levallois blanks from northeast Africa and southwest Asia, and interpret Levallois stone tools from northern Arabia dating to early Marine Isotope Stage 3 as likely produced by Neanderthals.^[175]
• Evidence from the study of palynological assemblages from the Axlor site (Spain), indicative of marked shifts in landscape structure at the time of the Neanderthal occupation of the site, is presented by Pérez-Díaz et al. (2026).^[176]
• Evidence of short-term Neanderthal occupations of the Eirós cave (Spain), indicative of high mobility of late Neanderthal communities from northwestern Iberian Peninsula, is presented by Rodríguez-Álvarez et al. (2026).^[177]
• Fotiadou et al. (2026) reconstruct the demographic history of late Neanderthals on the basis of data from mitochondrial DNA, reporting evidence indicating that nearly all late Neanderthals from Europe belonged to a single mitochondrial DNA lineage, likely as a result of expansion across Europe from a refugium in southwestern France, and evidence of rapid decline in the effective population size of late Neanderthals shortly before their extinction;^[178] Sánchez Goñi & d'Errico (2026) link the presence of the refugium in southwestern France to the climatic configuration affecting western Europe 76,000 to 68,000 years ago.^[179]
• Bossoms Mesa et al. (2026) reconstruct the genetic diversity of late Neanderthals from Belgium and France, finding no evidence of mating among close relatives or genetic deterioration prior to Neanderthal extinction.^[180]
• Yousefi et al. (2026) study changes in suitability and connectivity of Neanderthal habitat through time, and find no evidence of habitat fragmentation caused by climate changes before Neanderthal extinction.^[181]
• Baykara et al. (2026) report evidence of sequential occupation of the Üçağızlı II Cave (Turkey) by Neanderthals and modern humans, and evidence of cultural continuity between members of the two human lineages occupying the site.^[182]
• Schoenemann et al. (2026) interpret differences in brain anatomy of Neanderthals and modern humans as falling within the range of differences between modern human populations, and find no evidence of significang cognitive differences between Neanderthals and modern humans that might have contributed to Neanderthal extinction.^[183]
• Platt, Harris & Tishkoff (2026) reconstruct likely patterns of interbreeding between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans on the basis of the study of their X chromosomes, interpreted as indicating that their interbreeding predominantly involved Neanderthal men mating with anatomically modern women.^[184]
• Evidence from the study of Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages, indicating that overall anatomically modern human occupations can be distinguished from Neanderthal ones on the basis of tighter and more cohesive clusters of archaeological remains, is presented by Merino-Pelaz & Cobo-Sánchez (2026).^[185]
• Evidence of utility of the study of nonmetric traits at the enamel-dentine junction for distinguishing teeth of Neanderthals and modern humans is presented by Becam, Chevalier & Colard (2026).^[186]
• Kanis et al. (2026) identify amino acid changes in the growth hormone receptor of Neanderthals, including a change driving faster cell growth, and report evidence of more muscle mass in modern humans who inherited the gene encoding the Neanderthal growth hormone receptor through admixture.^[187]
• Zhang et al. (2026) present a new method for identification of evidence of archaic ancestry in modern human genomes, and report evidence of an introgression from an unknown archaic lineage into the ancestors of modern humans before their migration out of Africa.^[188]
• Evidence of effectiveness of the imputation in detection of Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry in low-coverage ancient genomes is presented by Capodiferro et al. (2026) .^[189]
• Rao et al. (2026) identify bone fragments and teeth from the Pleistocene strata from the Bianfu Cave (Yunnan, China) as Denisovan remains,^[190] while Ruan et al. (2026) study archaeological remains associated with Denisovan fossils from the Bianfu Cave, interpreted as indicative of specialized hunting, expedient production of stone tools and extensive use of unmodified bones by Denisovans.^[191]
• Hublin et al. (2026) report the discovery of new, approximately 773,000-years-old hominin fossils from Grotte à Hominidés at Thomas Quarry I in Casablanca (Morocco), close in age to Homo antecessor but morphologically distinct from members of this species, preserving a combination of primitive and derived traits seen in Eurasian archaic hominins and in Homo sapiens.^[192]
• Evidence from the study of a stratified sequence of lithic assemblages ranging from Acheulian to the Middle Stone Age from the Amanzi Springs archaeological site (South Africa), indicative of emergence of the Middle Stone Age in the studied area around 230,000 years ago, is presented by Blackwood et al. (2026).^[193]
• Evidence of consistent and specialized extraction of hornfels for the production of stone tools between 220,000 and 110,000 years ago is reported from the Jojosi site (South Africa) by Will et al. (2026).^[194]
• Beyene et al. (2026) report the discovery of approximately 100,000-years-old human skeletons and Middle Stone Age artifacts from the Halibee member of the Dawaitoli Formation (Ethiopia), interpreted as preserved in a wooded depositional environment with seasonal flooding.^[195]
• Zimmer et al. (2026) interpret the morphological variation of Middle Stone Age human mandibles from the Klasies River Main Site (South Africa) as not conclusively indicative of presence of more than one population lineage.^[196]
• García-Morato et al. (2026) reconstruct climate and vegetation changes in southern Africa from Marine Isotope Stage 5 to Marine Isotope Stage 3, and find that the emergence of the 76,000-67,000-years-old Stilbaai lithic technocomplex coincided with humid, cool phase that likely supported high biomass and expanded habitable zones, while the 64,000-60,000 years of Howiesons Poort technocomplex arose and ended during peaks of aridity, with a wetter interval midway through them.^[197]
• Evidence from the study of engraved ostrich eggshell fragments from the Howiesons Poort technocomplex, indicating that the studied engravings represent an expression of complex graphic representation by Middle Stone Age humans, is presented by Decembrini et al. (2026).^[198]
• Alichane et al. (2026) study the morphology of the enamel-dentine junction of the first and second molars in hominins associated with the Middle Stone Age Aterian technocomplexes in northwestern Africa, reporting evidence of overall closer morphological similarity to anatomically modern humans than to Neanderthals, but also evidence of morphological differences that might be related to the age and large size of the studied teeth.^[199]
• Evidence of application of poison derived from plants (likely from Boophone disticha) on the tips of 60,000-years-old arrowhead from the Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter (South Africa) is presented by Isaksson, Högberg & Lombard (2026).^[200]
• Arlt (2026) determines the Robberg stone tool tradition in southern Africa to span the internal from 24.800 to 9.700 years ago rather than from 18.000 to 12.000 years ago, and reports evidence of a more gradual transition between Robberg and Oakhurst technocomplexes than indicated by earlier studies.^[201]
• Review of research on the origin and on the course of global spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa from the preceding years is published by Groucutt (2026).^[202]
• Pantoja-Pérez et al. (2026) identify dental and bone abnormalities in the mandible of Qafzeh 25 as likely caused by sharp object trauma, and report evidence of survival of the studied individual after the injury.^[203]
• Litov, Ben-Dor & Barkai (2026) interpret the decline of use of in heavy-duty tools in Levant after the Lower-Middle Paleolithic transition, coinciding with decline of megaherbivores in the studied region, as indicating that the studied tools were primarily used for processing of large prey.^[204]
• Abbas et al. (2026) provide evidence from the study of riverine wetland environments from the Hamra Faddan and Wadi al-Hasa localities from the eastern margin of the Jordan Rift Valley interpreted as indicating that southern Levant provided a stable environmental niche that sustained human populations from the late Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic.^[205]
• Zhao et al. (2026) study the morphology of hominin limb bones from the Salawusu site (China), finding no evidence of diagnostic features of the Neanderthal lineage, and reporting morphological evidence consistent with affinities with modern humans.^[206]
• Li et al. (2026) report evidence from the study of the palynological record from the East China Sea continental shelf spanning the past 71,000 years indicative of presence of a cool, dry temperate grassland biome during the lowstand intervals (including the Last Glacial Maximum), as well as evidence of presence of an open-forest landscape during the milder conditions of the Marine Isotope Stage 3, and interpret their findings as supporting the interpretation of the exposed East China Sea continental shelf as a habitat facilitating the initial dispersal of early modern humans into East Asia.^[207]
• Zhang et al. (2026) study the features of stone tools from the Nwya Devu site (China), reporting evidence of differences from stone tool assemblages from northern Initial Upper Paleolithic sites, and interpret tools from the Nwya Devu site as either representing a regional variant of Initial Upper Paleolithic technology or resulting from a separate dispersal of blade technologies into East Asia.^[208]
• Totsuka et al. (2026) reconstruct the chronology of early Upper Paleolithic sites in Japan, and report evidence of rapid increase in the number of sites between 36,000 and 34,000 years ago that was likely linked to growth of the human population size.^[209]
• Oktaviana et al. (2026) provide age estimates for Pleistocene rock art (hand stencils, human figures and non-figurative, geometric motifs) from southeastern Sulawesi (Indonesia) and determine the calcite overlying a hand stencil from Liang Metanduno on Muna Island to be at least 67,800 years old, representing the oldest demonstrated minimum-age constraints for parietal art worldwide reported to date, and interpreted as the oldest known archaeological evidence for the presence of Homo sapiens in Wallacea.^[210]
• Ruff et al. (2026) describe a Late Pleistocene human femur from Wajak (Java, Indonesia), calculate body mass and stature of the studied individual and compare them with data on other Late Pleistocene individuals from East Asia, reporting evidence of greater body mass and relative body breadth in individuals from higher latitudes.^[211]
• Borreggine et al. (2026) reconstruct likely timing and paths of early human migration from Sundaland into Sahul, and find northern routes of migration to be more likely than southern when changes of sea level and ocean currents are taken into account.^[212]
• Evidence of exploitation of a broad range of resources by humans occupying the Inumaki Cave on Biak (Indonesia) during the Last Glacial Maximum is presented by Tolla et al. (2026).^[213]
• Brumm et al. (2026) identify dental pathologies in late Pleistocene and Holocene human remains from the Leang Bulu Bettue and Leang Cappalombo 1 sites (Sulawesi, Indonesia) interpreted as consistent with use of areca nuts as drugs by the studied individuals through sucking on intact nuts.^[214]
• Allen et al. (2026) study the visibility of fallow deer in broad-leaved woodland environment, and interpret purported hunting lesions on fossil bones of fallow deer as placed in areas that would be visible to Palaeolithic hunters in such environments.^[215]
• Evidence indicating that Aurignacian artifacts from cave sites in southwestern Germany were adorned with geometric sign sequences of comparable complexity to that of early proto-cuneiform is presented by Bentz & Dutkiewicz (2026).^[216]
• Conard, Janas & Zeidi (2026) report the discovery of two Aurignacian bird figurines made from mammoth ivory in the Hohle Fels cave (Germany).^[217]
• Isle de Beauchaine et al. (2026) study the morphology of teeth in the Aurignacian mandible Les Rois 2 from the Les Rois cave (Charente, France), interpreted as consistent with assignment of the specimen to an anatomically modern human.^[218]
• Röding et al. (2026) study the morphology of the Late Pleistocene frontal bone from Hahnöfersand (Germany) described by Bräuer (1980),^[219] interpret it as falling within the variability of Holocene Homo sapiens, and find no evidence of a morphology intermediate between those of Neanderthals and modern humans.^[220]
• Bossoms Mesa et al. (2026) report evidence of preservation of human DNA in pigment samples collected in and around Paleolithic rock art, including preservation of DNA resulting from deposition through direct human contact in the Escoural Cave (Portugal).^[221]
• A study on the age of the carbonate thin layers covering or underlying rock art from the Cave of Altamira (Spain), providing evidence of several periods of cave art from the ceiling of the studied cave, is published by Pons-Branchu et al. (2026).^[222]
• Evidence from the Velika Pećina, Velika Vranovica and Pećina kod Stene cave sites (Serbia), indicative of human presence in central Balkans during the Last Glacial Maximum, is presented by Kuhn et al. (2026).^[223]
• Masojć et al. (2026) describe a Late Pleistocene human tooth from the Khutul Usny Cave site, representing the first fossil of an early Homo sapiens in Mongolia with secure geological context and providing evidence of presence of the species in southern Mongolia around the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum.^[224]
• A study on the frontal and mandibular morphology of the Red Deer Cave people, interpreted as consistent of affinities with Homo sapiens and indicative of diversity cranial morphology of late Pleistocene hominins from eastern Asia, is published by Fan et al. (2026).^[225]
• Evidence indicating that Solutrean artifacts from the Peña Capón rock shelter (Muriel-Tamajón, Spain) were sourced 600 to 700 kilometers away from this site, in the present-day territory of southwest France, is presented by Sánchez de la Torre et al. (2026).^[226]
• Nash et al. (2026) report rediscovery of putative Upper Paleolithic cave art from the Bacon Hole site (Wales, United Kingdom) originally discovered by William Sollas and Henri Breuil in 1912 and support the interpretation of the studied horizontal lines as cave art.^[227]
• Reiche et al. (2026) determine the age of the carbon black-based figures in the rock art from the Font-de-Gaume cave (France) on the basis of chemical imaging and radiocarbon dating.^[228]
• Parfitt et al. (2026) identify an Upper Paleolithic pendant made out of a polished seal tooth from the Kents Cavern (United Kingdom), which was an inland site during the Magdalenian occupation.^[229]
• Allaby et al. (2026) reconstruct the environment of the Southern River system in southern Doggerland on the basis of sedimentological and sedimentary ancient DNA, and report evidence indicating that early colonization of Doggerland was facilitated by presence of northern refugia during the early Mesolithic.^[230]
• Evidence indicating that early Paleo-Indians from eastern Beringia, North American Clovis complex and South American Fishtail Projectile Point complex were dietary specialists feeding on Pleistocene megafauna is presented by Potter et al. (2026).^[231]
• Eren et al. (2026) argue that Pleistocene sites in North America with proboscidean remains associated with Clovis points representing hunting and scavenging events cannot be reliably distinguished on the basis of available evidence, and argue that Clovis foragers likely practiced both hunting and scavenging of large Pleistocene mammals.^[232]
• Evidence from the study of assemblages of Pleistocene perishable objects from the Cougar Mountain Cave and Paisley Caves (Oregon, United States), indicative of complexity and sophistication of perishable technologies in the North American Great Basin during the Late Pleistocene, is presented by Rosencrance et al. (2026).^[233]
• Carrillo-Briceño et al. (2026) report evidence of exploitation of glyptodonts, ground sloth, proboscideans, macraucheniids and toxodontids by Pleistocene humans from the Taima-Taima site (Venezuela).^[234]
• Eren et al. (2026) provide estimates for the first appearance of the atlatl in western North America on the basis of analysis of the archaeological record, and find no evidence supporting atlatl use by foragers from the Clovis culture.^[235]
• Pettigrew et al. (2026) report evidence from naturalistic experiments indicating that the atlatl was able to deliver fatal wounds to megafauna, including animals as large as mammoths.^[236]
• He et al. (2026) reconstruct the course of peopling of East Asia and subsequent diversification of populations from the studied area during the Paleolithic and Neolithic on the basis of data from Y chromosome genomic data from ancient and modern individuals.^[237]
• Zhang et al. (2026) sequence genomes of individuals from the Donghulin site in the North China Plain, and report evidence of population changes over two millennia during the Paleolithic-Neolithic transition.^[238]
• A partial humerus with morphological affinities with Late Upper Paleolithic modern humans is described from early Holocene strata from Heilongjiang (China) by Wei et al. (2026).^[239]
• Bourgon et al. (2026) report evidence from zinc stable isotope analysis of tooth enamel of humans from the late Pleistocene and Holocene sites from Sri Lanka indicative of a mixed diet including both animal and plant foods, with the plant component of the diet increasing over time (even before the introduction of crop agriculture).^[240]
• Watanabe et al. (2026) report evidence from the study of genomes of the Jōmon people indicative of their descent from Upper Paleolithic continental East Asian populations that settled the Japanese archipelago between 27,000 and 19,000 years ago, and evidence of cold adaptation in the Jōmon lineage.^[241]
• Evidence from the study of stone tool assemblages from the Buhais Rockshelter (United Arab Emirates) indicative of repeated occupation of the studied area between 210,000 and 16,000 years ago (including in the time of overall increased aridity of the Arabian Peninsula between 60,000 and 16,000 years ago) is presented by Bretzke et al. (2026).^[242]
• Evidence from the study of Natufian artefacts and rock art from the Sahout site and the neighbouring sites of Jebel Arnaan and Jebel Misma (Saudi Arabia), indicative of occupation of the studied area by communities interacting with people from the Fertile Crescent during the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene, is presented by Shipton et al. (2026).^[243]
• Davin et al. (2026) report the discovery of clay ornaments from Natufian (late Epipalaeolithic) sites in Israel, interpreted as produced both by adults and by children, and representing the earliest known clay ornamental tradition outside of Europe.^[244]
• Evidence of importance of consumption of lizards and snakes in subsistence strategies of Natufian foragers from the El Wad site (Israel) is presented by Lev, Weinstein-Evron & Yeshurun (2026).^[245]
• Evidence of intentional pyre cremation at the HOR-1 site (Malawi) approximately 9500 years before present, representing the oldest adult pyre cremation in the world reported to date, is presented by Cerezo-Román et al. (2026).^[246]
• Chritz et al. (2026) reconstruct the subsistence of foragers and herders from eastern Africa living from 9500 to 230 years before present on the basis of isotopic values of their tooth enamel and bone collagen, reporting evidence dietary diversity in fisher-foragers and in earliest pastoralists from the Turkana Basin (Kenya), and evidence that specialized pastoralist diets happened approximately 1000 years after the introduction of domestic livestock.^[247]
• Martin et al. (2026) reconstruct the human population history in northeastern Africa on the basis of the study of the morphology of bony labyrinths of Late Pleistocene and Holocene individuals, reporting evidence of overall biological discontinuity between foragers and Neolithic food producers in the Middle Nile Valley, but also evidence of limited, localized instances of admixture or continuity between the two groups.^[248]
• Surovell et al. (2026) provide new information on the age of the purported pre-Clovis site Monte Verde II (Chile), and argue that the site cannot be older than the middle Holocene.^[249]
• The first molecular evidence of HPV16 in ancient anatomically modern humans is reported from the study of ancient DNA of the Ust'-Ishim man and Ötzi by Yazigi et al. (2026).^[250]
• Balzeau et al. (2026) provide a direct comparison between brain and endocast characteristics in the same individuals on the basis of data from the study of 75 volunteers, reporting the discovery of endocranial marks unrelated to cerebral sulci, and propose a new standardised approach to the study of fossil endocasts and reconstruction of brains of fossil hominins.^[251]
• Review of virtual anatomy methods used in paleoanthropological studies is published by Aramendi & de Jager (2026).^[252]
• A new method for reconstruction of missing landmarks in the studies of hominin long bones is presented by Courtenay & Aramendi (2026).^[253]
• Keevil et al. (2026) provide measurement data from bone surface modifications resulting from simulated stone tool and percussive butchery, carnivore feeding trials and ungulate trampling, facilitating identification of bone modifications in the studies on the origin and evolution of human carnivory.^[254]
• Hobaiter & Dominy (2026) argue that the emergence of spoken language and the replacement of ape-like gestural systems by speech as the default mode of human communication might have resulted from fireside storytelling.^[255]

Rodent research

• A study on the fossil record of Asian rodents spanning the last 55 million years, providing evidence of impact of tectonic and climatic changes on ecomorphological diversity of Asian rodent assemblages throughouth their evolutionary history, is published by Peng & Hopkins (2026).^[269]
• Pfaff, Ruf & Le Maître (2026) determine the locomotory behavior of extinct members of Eusciurida on the basis of the study of middle and inner ear of extant and extinct rodents, interpreting early rodents and sciurids as fossorial, with adaptations to arboreal lifestyle evolving in later taxa.^[270]
• Review of research on systematics of fossil dormice from Mediterranean islands from the preceding years is published by Fox & Hennekam (2026).^[271]
• Wei et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of marmots on the basis of paleontological and molecular data.^[272]
• Murchie et al. (2026) report evidence of preservation of ancient environmental DNA of diverse Quaternary organisms from eastern Beringia in the Pleistocene and Holocene ground squirrel coprolites from Yukon (Canada), including evidence of previously unrecognized genetic diversity of Arctic members of the genus Urocitellus.^[273]
• Li, Bi & Li (2026) present the first virtual endocasts of Paleogene ctenodactyloids Exmus mini and Bounomys ulantatalensis.^[274]
• The first fossil material of Hystrix subcristata from Taiwan is reported from the Pleistocene Chiting Formation by Halaçlar & Lin (2026).^[275]
• Buldrini et al. (2026) describe fossil material of Phugatherium sp. from the Pliocene strata of Mininco Formation (Chile), extending known distribution of capybaras west of the Andes.^[276]
• Selvatici et al. (2026) determine a previously unidentified mummified animal from the Homestake Gulch site (Yukon, Canada) as a late Holocene (approximately 3000-years-old) New World porcupine, report the recovery of the first complete ancient mitochondrial genome of a member of this species, and interpret this finding as evidence of appearance of the New World porcupines in the studied area after the appearance of the boreal forest in the aftermath of the Last Glacial Period.^[277]
• Carrillo et al. (2026) study the evolutionary history of caviomorph rodents on the basis of data from extant and extinct members of the group, providing evidence of different trajectories of taxonomic and morphological diversification of Chinchilloidea and Octodontoidea.^[278]
• Evidence from the study of tooth wear of caviomorph rodents from the Paleogene strata of the Shapaja in Peruvian Amazonia, indicative of diverse dietary strategies of the studied rodents, is presented by Robinet et al. (2026).^[279]
• Gutstein et al. (2026) describe fossil material of a member of the genus Cardiatherium from the Bahía Inglesa Formation (Chile), providing evidence of wetter environmental conditions in the area of present-day Pacific coast of the Atacama Desert during the late Miocene.^[280]
• Delinschi et al. (2026) confirm the validity of Sarmatosminthus gabuniai on the basis of the analysis of fossil material from Vallesian sites in Moldova, Romania and Ukraine.^[281]
• A study on the evolution of incisors of Eocene-Oligocene muroid rodents from Balkanatolia is published by van de Weerd et al. (2026).^[282]
• Lopatin (2026) describes fossil material of members of the family Platacanthomyidae from the Pleistocene strata from Vietnam, including the first known fossil material of the Chapa pygmy dormouse and Typhlomys taxuansis.^[283]
• Rico & Terry (2026) identify skull traits that are best predictors of body length and weight of pack rats and reconstruct the evolution of body size of pack rats from the Paisley Caves (Oregon, United States) throughout the past 15,000 years.^[284]
• Baca et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of the field vole species complex based on data from modern mitogenomes and nuclear genomes and from ancient genomes of specimens spanning the last 75,000 years.^[285]
• Alfaro-Ibáñez et al. (2026) study mitochondrial genomes of Pleistocene tundra voles from the El Mirón Cave (Spain), and identify a novel, extinct southern European haplogroup within this species.^[286]
• Evidence from the study of molars of Stenocranius anglicus (European narrow-headed vole) from Middle Pleistocene to Holocene localities in Czech Republic and Slovakia, indicative of more pronounced morphological variation between populations from different sites than between stratigraphic stages and of long-term survival of the species in isolated populations, is presented by Dubjelová et al. (2026).^[287]
• Desclaux et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of members of the genus Arvicola in Western Europe during the late Middle and Late Pleistocene on the basis of the study of morphology of teeth from the Lazaret Cave and Moula-Guercy sites (France), Abauntz Cave, Cova Eirós (Spain) and Trou Al'Wesse (Belgium), interpreted as consistent with a complex biogeographic history including multiple dispersals into Western Europe and subsequent local extinctions and recolonizations.^[288]
• New fossil material of members of the genus Byzantinia, providing new information on the morphology of teeth of members of this genus and their evolution, is described from the Miocene strata of the Zahleh Formation (Lebanon) by López-Antoñanzas et al. (2026).^[289]
• A study on the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of extant and extinct hamsters is published by Dirnberger et al. (2026).^[290]
• Bujalska et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of European small hamsters on the basis of mitochondrial genomes from Late Pleistocene and Holocene remains from Central and Western Europe, the Balkans and Anatolia, identifying evidence of presence of the winter white dwarf hamster in Central Europe during the Late Pleistocene.^[291]
• Pacheco-Castro, Carranza-Castañeda & Wang (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of Sigmodon minor from the Pliocene strata of the San Miguel de Allende Basin, representing the first record of the species from central Mexico and its southernmost known record in North America.^[292]

Miscellaneous euarchontoglires research

• Zhang & Wang (2026) revise and study the affinities of fossil lagomorphs from China.^[294]
• A study on the anatomy and affinities of Gymnesicolagus gelaberti is published by Čermák et al. (2026).^[295]
• Zhang & Wang (2026) describe new fossil material of Desmatolagus gobiensis from the Oligocene strata from the Ulantatal site (Inner Mongolia, China) and study the phylogenetic relationships of the species, interpreting it as a basal member of Ochotonidae.^[296]
• Kalaitzi & Kostopoulos (2026) study the forelimb and hindlimb morphology of Trischizolagus dumitrescuae, interpreted as indicative of adaptations for controlled, agile leaping, as well as indicative of more developed running abilities compared to typical rabbits but without the extreme specialization seen in hares.^[297]
• Chester et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of Purgatorius from the Denver Formation (Colorado, United States), representing the first record of a Puercan plesiadapiform south of Montana reported to date.^[298]
• Evidence from the study of virtual endocasts of extant and extinct members of Euarchontoglires, indicative of a shared ancestral endocranial shape in early members of the group, indicating that treeshrews are not a good model for the ancestral endocranial shape in Euarchontoglires, and indicating that primates evolved their modern endocranial morphologies faster than other members of Euarchontoglires, is presented by Lang et al. (2026)^[299]

Cetaceans

Other artiodactyls

Carnivoran research

• Evidence of impact of competition on diversification of North American and Eurasian carnivorans throughout the last 45 million years is presented by Porto & Quental (2026).^[390]
• A study on the mandibles of extant and extinct carnivorans, providing evidence of overall decoupling of evolution of mandible shape and function, but also possible evidence of modular dynamics in the evolution of mandible, with differences in the pace and correlation of evolution of different anatomical regions, is published by Sansalone et al. (2026).^[391]
• Bartolini-Lucenti et al. (2026) document new occurrences of carnivorans in the Pliocene strata from the Jradzor locality (Armenia), including Baranogale helbingi, Chasmaporthetes lunensis, Pliocrocuta perrieri and cf. Lynx sp., expanding known geographic and temporal ranges of the studied carnivorans.^[392]
• Orcutt et al. (2026) report the discovery of new carnivoran fossil material from the John Day Formation (Oregon, United States), including the first definitive records of Osbornodon sp. and Otarocyon sp. from the studied formation, as well as a possible fossil material of a large amphicyonine.^[393]
• Espinasa et al. (2026) study the composition of the Rancholabrean carnivoran assemblage from the Calera cave system (San Luis Potosí, Mexico), including a growth sequence of Smilodon fatalis.^[394]
• Díaz de León-Muñoz, Siliceo & Ferreira (2026) study the feeding behavior of Magericyon anceps, reporting evidence of resistance of its mandible to loads during hunting, but also evidence of an unexpectedly weak bite.^[395]
• Evidence from the study of extant and extinct canids interpreted as supporting Bergmann's rule in the studied group at the interspecific level is presented by Chaves-Silveira et al. (2026).^[396]
• Evidence from the study of the fossil record of canids from the John Day Formation, indicative of stronger links of dietary behavior of the studied canids (as indicated by tooth wear) with lineage duration than with tooth morphology, is presented by Tanis, DeSantis & Terry (2026).^[397]
• Kort, Cavin & Wang (2026) describe the anatomy of the postcranial skeleton of Mesocyon coryphaeus, finding no evidence of cursorial adaptations seen in later canids, and interpret the studied canid as a likely ambush predator.^[398]
• Kropczyk & Marciszak (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of the corsac fox from the late Pleistocene strata from the Rogóżka Cave (Poland).^[399]
• Fossil material of Xenocyon lycaonoides representing one of the earliest records of this species worldwide is described from the early Pleistocene strata from the Gonghe Basin (Tibetan Plateau; China) by Huang et al. (2026).^[400]
• Frosali et al. (2026) interpret the shape and size of the frontal sinus in Canis etruscus, Canis mosbachensis and Canis borjgali as primarily influenced by the ecology of the studied canids, and interpret the morphology of the frontal sinus of the latter two species as indicative of higher proportion of meat in their diets compared to C. etruscus.^[401]
• Lyubimov & Sablin (2026) report pathological modifications in a mandible of Canis etruscus from the Pleistocene strata from the Muhkai 2 locality (Dagestan, Russia) identified as a fully healed displaced mandibular fracture, and interpret the survival of the studied individual as a likely evidence of sociality and conspecific care in C. etruscus.^[402]
• Blázquez-Orta et al. (2026) study the fossil material of Early and Middle Pleistocene canids from the Atapuerca Mountains (Spain), interpret the morphology of the studied fossils as consistent with a gradual transition from Canis mosbachensis to the wolf, and determine the observed morphological changes to coincide with a climatic shift.^[403]
• Evidence from the study of tooth wear in late Pleistocene wolves from Britain, indicative of dietary shifts related to climate and environmental changes, is presented by Burtt et al. (2026).^[404]
• Micucci et al. (2026) compare the lengths and widths of carnassial teeth and overall body mass of Pleistocene grey wolves from eastern Beringia and recent Canadian individuals, find no evidence of significant body size differences between Pleistocene Yukon wolves and modern Canadian ones when accounting for sample size differences, and interpret Pleistocene Yukon wolves and modern Canadian wolves as belonging to the same ecotype, different from larger Pleistocene wolves from Alaska and Siberia.^[405]
• Evidence from the study of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes Paleolithic dog remains, indicative of presence and wide distribution of a genetically homogeneous dog population across Europe and Anatolia by at least 14,300 years ago, is presented by Marsh et al. (2026).^[406]
• Bergström et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of early European dogs on the basis of the study of ancient DNA from Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains, reporting evidence of genetic diversification of European dogs before 14,200 years ago, and evidence of contribution of Mesolithic dogs to the ancestry of later, Neolithic European dogs.^[407]
• Kropczyk & Marciszak (2026) study the composition of the canid assemblage from caves from Mount Połom (Poland), including Pleistocene wolves that are morphologically comparable with extant wolves and only slightly smaller, representing one of the oldest large-bodied wolves in Europe reported to date.^[408]
• Purported partial dentary of a member of the genus Plionarctos from the Miocene Rattlesnake Formation (Oregon, United States) is considered to be only identifiable as belonging to an indeterminate bear by Schubert & Samuels (2026), who consider Plionarctos edensis from the latest Hemphillian Mt. Eden Local Fauna from California to be oldest known confirmed short-faced bear.^[409]
• Ruiz-Ramoni et al. (2026) identify fossil material of a specimen of Arctotherium wingei from Taima-Taima (Venezuela), find A. wingei to be the only species of Arctotherium present in the region, and review the fossil record of bears in Venezuela.^[410]
• Lopatin et al. (2026) describe molars of Helarctos malayanus praemalayanus from the Pleistocene strata of the Tham Hai Cave (Vietnam), and interpret the fossil record from Southeast Asia as indicative of larger body size of Middle Pleistocene sun bears compared to their extant relatives.^[411]
• Probable fossil material of the Asian black bear, representing the first known record of a member of this lineage from northeastern Iberian Peninsula, is described from the Middle Pleistocene strata from Llers Quarry (Spain) by Rufí et al. (2026).^[412]
• Gutiérrez-Carbajal et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of cave bears from southwestern Europe on the basis of data from enamel proteomic analysis, recovering Ursus dolinensis as a basal member of the cave bear lineage.^[413]
• Kochnev et al. (2026) study the variation of the size and shape of the hard palate and choanae of Ursus kanivetz and Ursus rossicus, and report possible evidence of a link between the hard palate form and the climate.^[414]
• A study on the ecology of cave bears from Galería 1 inside the Cueva de Guantes (Palencia, Spain) as indicated by isotopic composition of tooth enamel and bone collagen is published by Rodríguez-Franco et al. (2026).^[415]
• Hasegawa et al. (2026) study the distribution of brown bears in the Japanese Archipelago during the Late Pleistocene, reporting remains of exceptionally large individuals from Aomori, Nagano, Shizuoka and Oita.^[416]
• Estraviz-López et al. (2026) study the fossil record of Pleistocene brown bears from Portugal, reporting evidence of presence of robust individuals with features convergent with cave bears and some of the largest brown bears in the fossil record reported to date, as well as evidence of size reduction during the Holocene that might have been linked to human pressure and habitat destruction.^[417]
• Evidence from the study of mandibles of Pleistocene and Holocene browns bears, indicative of differences of masticatory adaptations of bears from warm and cold areas regardless of their geological age, is presented by van Heteren & Villalba de Alvarado (2026).^[418]
• Johnson et al. (2026) report the recovery of ancient DNA from the early Holocene glacial lake sediments in northern Sweden representing the oldest record of brown bear in the region reported to date, and report evidence of affinities of the studied individual with the southern population of Scandinavian brown bears, possibly indicating that the individual migrated northward from its birthplace.^[419]
• Evidence of a predominantly herbivorous diet of early Holocene brown bears from the Hattab II and Kehf el-Hammar sites (Morocco) is presented by Iken et al. (2026).^[420]
• Description of new fossil material of Trochotherium cyamoides from La Grive-Saint-Alban (France) and Kleineisenbach (Germany) and a study on the anatomy and affinities of members of this species is published by Sánchez-Hernández et al. (2026), who interpret T. cyamoides as a member of the stem group of Mephitidae that might have fed on terrestrial gastropods.^[421]
• Evidence from the study of the pelvis and hindlimbs of Cyonasua, indicative of morphological similarities to bones of scansorial and terrestrial generalist carnivorans such as members of the genera Galictis, Meles and Arctictis, is presented by Tarquini et al. (2026).^[422]
• Tseng (2026) describes the first known partial skeleton of Leptarctus wortmani from the Hemphillian strata from the Rome Beds (Oregon, United States), providing evidence of morphology of the postcranial skeleton similar to those of extant badgers belonging to the genus Meles.^[423]
• Lopatin et al. (2026) describe a molar of a member of the genus Mellivora from the Pleistocene strata from the Tham Hai Cave, representing the first known record of Mellivorinae in Southeast Asia.^[424]
• A new specimen of Cernictis hesperus, providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species, is described from the (probably late Hemphillian) strata of the Pinole Tuff Formation (California, United States) by Tseng (2026).^[425]
• A well-preserved cranium of a Pleistocene sable is described from the Ogorokha Site (Sakha Republic, Russia) by Boeskorov et al. (2026).^[426]
• Sotnikova et al. (2026) report the discovery of new fossil material of large-bodied wolverines from the Pleistocene strata from the Indigirka River basin and New Siberia (Sakha Republic, Russia), and interpret their large size as likely to be physiological adaptation to the mammoth steppe environment.^[427]
• Rule et al. (2026) study the evolution of amphibious hearing in pinnipeds on the basis of data from extant and extinct representatives of the group and their relatives, link its evolution to the evolution of cavernous tissue in pinniped ear canal and middle ear, and report evidence of presence of amphibious hearing in the last common ancestor of "enaliarctines" and modern pinnipeds but not in more basal members of the pinniped stem group.^[428]
• The first pinniped fossil from Taiwan (a femur of a member of the genus Zalophus from the Pleistocene strata from the bottom of the Taiwan Strait) is described by Sun et al. (2026).^[429]
• Dewaele et al. (2026) study the long bone variability of extant earless seals, finding no evidence of consistently clear genus- or species-specific shapes, and note the need for reevaluation of validity of fossil taxa described on the basis of isolated long bones.^[430]
• Postcranial earless seal bones with distinctive morphology are reported from the Miocene strata from Hrytsiv (Ukraine; the type locality of Planopusa semenovi) by Otriazhyi et al. (2026).^[431]
• Dewaele (2026) revises the fossil record of earless seals from the Miocene strata of the Chesapeake Group (Maryland and Virginia, United States), reporting evidence of presence of three seal morphotypes in the studied fossil material.^[432]
• A study on the relationship between morphology and ecology of extant and extinct members of Feliformia is published by Barrett & Hopkins (2026), who identify three adaptive zones within the studied group, and find that hypercarnivorous feliforms, unlike members of the group with broader diets, can be reliably identified on the basis of the study of their dental morphology.^[433]
• Kargopoulos et al. (2026) revise the composition of the ictitheriine hyaenid assemblage from the Miocene strata from the Venta del Moro (Spain), reporting possible evidence of presence of a second species in addition to Hyaenictitherium wongii.^[434]
• Kargopoulos et al. (2026) identify bite punctures in skulls of Adcrocuta eximia from the Miocene strata from the Torrentet dels Traginers site and Chasmaporthetes lunensis from the Pleistocene strata from the La Puebla de Valverde site (Spain), interpreted as possible evidence of intraspecific aggression.^[435]
• A study on Pliocene coprolites from the Odesa catacombs (Ukraine), providing evidence of extensive bone and hair consumption by members of the genus Pliocrocuta interpreted as indicative of scavenging as primary feeding strategy, is published by Brachaniec et al. (2026).^[436]
• Evidence of morphological changes in the skull of Pachycrocuta brevirostris from the Pleistocene strata from the Taurida Cave (Crimea) during its ontogeny is presented by Lavrov et al. (2026).^[437]
• Evidence of increased adaptation of postcanine teeth of Pachycrocuta brevirostris to hypercarnivory and bone-cracking throughout the evolutionary history of the species is presented by Khantemirov et al. (2026).^[438]
• Courtenay et al. (2026) identify bite marks on a hippopotamus femur from the Pleistocene strata from the Fuente Nueva 3 site (Guadix–Baza Basin; Granada, Spain) as most likely produced by Pachycrocuta brevirostris, and propose a framework that can facilitate the identification of tooth marks of Pachycrocuta.^[439]
• Iannucci et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of a hyena belonging to the genus Crocuta from the Pirro III site (Italy), and interpret this finding as indicative of presence of Middle Pleistocene deposits at Pirro Nord.^[440]
• Khantemirov et al. (2026) study the morphology of teeth of late Pleistocene cave hyenas from the Tip-Tugai cave (Bashkortostan, Russia), and report differences in teeth morphology between Ural hyenas and most of the European ones which might be evidence of higher degree of adaptation to bone cracking in Ural hyenas.^[441]
• Evidence from the study of remains of the spotted hyena from the Pleistocene strata from the San Teodoro Cave (Sicily, Italy), indicative of slightly smaller body size of the spotted hyaenas from Sicily compared to their contemporaries from mainland Europe, is presented by Iurino et al. (2026).^[442]
• A nearly complete cranium of Adelphailurus kansensis, providing new information on the skull anatomy of members of this species, is described from the Hemphillian Big Sandy Formation (Arizona, United States) by Chatar & Tseng (2026).^[443]
• Salesa et al. (2026) study the functional anatomy of the hindlimbs of Promegantereon ogygia, and report evidence of morphological similarities to hindlimbs of the early felid Proailurus lemanensis.^[444]
• Evidence from the study of the neuroanatomy of Megantereon cultridens, interpreted as possibly indicative of scansorial adaptations, enhanced visual processing and preferences for closed environments, is presented by Meli et al. (2026).^[445]
• Haji-Sheikh, Haji-Sheikh & Naples (2026) present new cranial endocasts of Smilodon fatalis, and calculate that the range of brain endocast volumes of the studied species overlaps with the published range of brain volumes of modern lions.^[446]
• Evidence of utility of CT and MicroCT scans in determining the condition of tooth sockets in skulls of Smilodon fatalis from the La Brea Tar Pits, as well as in determining whether the canines of the studied specimens were correctly associated and correctly seated in tooth sockets during restoration of the skulls, is presented by Haji-Sheikh, Haji-Sheikh & Naples (2026).^[447]
• Schmökel, Del Chicca & Hagen Argudin Pina (2026) identify pathologies in three vertebrae of Smilodon fatalis from the La Brea Tar Pits, interpreted as consistent with the diagnosis of a spinal nerve tumor.^[448]
• Fernández-Jalvo et al. (2026) identify tooth marks of Smilodon on bones of Toxodon, Notiomastodon, Doedicurus, Glossotherium and Lestodon from the Pleistocene strata from the Salto de Piedra site (Argentina).^[449]
• A felid mandible interpreted as the most definitive fossil material of Homotherium latidens from Anatolia reported to date is described from the Burdur Basin (Turkey) by Yavuz et al. (2026).^[450]
• Nikolskiy et al. (2026) report the discovery of canines of Homotherium in the late Pleistocene strata from Suruktakh in the Kolyma River basin and from the Bolshoy Lyakhovsky Island (Russia), comfirming presence of members of this genus in northeastern Siberia approximately 41,500–37,500 years ago.^[451]
• Reumer, de Vos & Wibowo (2026) interpret Hemimachairodus zwierzyckii from the Pleistocene strata from Sangiran (Java, Indonesia) as a junior synonym of Homotherium latidens.^[452]
• Pérez et al. (2026) identify fossil material of lynxes from Serpenteko Leze de Mezkiritz pit (Navarre, Spain) as including remains of both the Iberian lynx and the Eurasian lynx, providing possible evidence of overlap of ranges of both species in northern Iberia around the Pleistocene–Holocene transition.^[453]
• Witt, Hotchner & Meachen (2026) report that postcranial remains of Miracinonyx trumani and cougars can be reliably differentiated on the basis of their postcranial remains, and identify fossils of M. trumani from new localities in United States and Mexico.^[454]
• Cassatt-Johnstone et al. (2026) determine Miracinonyx trumani to be the sister taxon of the cougar on the basis of data from high-coverage paleogenomes, identify three purported Pleistocene cougar individuals from Yukon (Canada) as individuals of M. trumani instead (extending known geographical range of the species), and report evidence of dietary differences between specimens of M. trumani from Yukon and Wyoming (United States).^[455]
• Lyubimov et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of Acinonyx pardinensis from the Muhkai 2 site (Dagestan, Russia), representing the first record of the species in the northeastern Caucasus.^[456]
• Hemmer (2026) interprets Pleistocene Feliopsis palaeojavanica from the Trinil site (Indonesia) as a member of a previously unrecognized pantherine lineage that also included Miocene Pachypanthera piriyai, and interprets the studied felids as possible specialized crocodile hunters.^[457]
• 26 purported subfossil tiger specimens from Japan are reinterpreted as cave lions by Sun et al. (2026), indicating that cave lions were the Panthera lineage that colonized Japan during the Pleistocene.^[458]
• Evidence from the study of genomes of cave lions living across a time series spanning over 100,000 years, indicating that cave and modern lions were distinct evolutionary lineages with independent histories, as well as indicative of extensive population connectivity of cave lions and indicative of interbreeding of modern lions (likely from southwestern Asia) with cave lions during the Late Pleistocene, is presented by Stanton et al. (2026).^[459]
• Gedman et al. (2026) perform phylogenetic analyses based on paleogenomes generated from ancient DNA found in two specimens of dire wolves and report that the dire wolf lineage diverged from other canids around 4.5 million years ago, prior to the split between the black-backed jackal and other members of the subtribe Canina. Admixture analyses of the dire wolves' paleogenomes indicate hybridization between the lineage that led to the subtribe Cerdocyonina and the sister lineage to gray wolves, coyotes and dholes.^[460]

Chiropteran research

• Morales et al. (2026) reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of bats on the basis of genomic data from extant taxa and from the fossil record, interpreted as indicative of European origin of the group in the Paleocene, as well as indicative of acquisition of laryngeal echolocation before the emergence of the bat crown group.^[463]
• Kaźmierkiewicz et al. (2026) reconstruct the evolutionary history of members of the genus Plecotus in Central Europe on the basis of data from ancient DNA from Pleistocene and Holocene fossils, and recover the paratype of Plecotus abeli as identical with extant brown long-eared bats.^[464]

Eulipotyphlan research

• Valenzuela et al. (2026) study the evolution of the postcranial skeleton in the lineage of Nesiotites from the Pliocene to the Holocene, reporting that members of the studied lineage underwent a size shift throughout their evolutionary history but retained adaptations to terrestrial generalist locomotion.^[465]
• A study on the composition and evolution of Miocene erinaceid assemblages from the Daroca-Calamocha area (Spain) is published by Cailleux et al. (2026).^[466]
• Cailleux (2026) identifies common dental pathologies in the fossil material of Galerix stehlini from the Miocene strata from La Grive-Saint-Alban (France), and interprets their recurrence as possibly linked to small population size linked to habitat fragmentation.^[467]

Perissodactyl research

• Tissier & Smith (2026) reconstruct the early evolutionary history of Perissodactyla on the basis of a new phylogenetic study, recovering purported horse relatives Hyracotherium and Pliolophus as not belonging to Hippomorpha, and reporting evidence of rapid dispersals of Pliolophus and Cardiolophus in the northern continents around the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum.^[470]
• New fossil material of Ancylotherium hennigi, providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species, is described from the Plio-Pleistocene strata from Laetoli (Tanzania) by Harrison & Kwekason (2026).^[471]
• Radović et al. (2026) identify dental remains of Tapirus arvernensis from the Pliocene strata from the Ridjake fossil site (Serbia).^[472]
• Sun et al. (2026) describe new fossil material of Tapirus sanyuanensis from the Pleistocene strata from Renzidong Cave (Anhui, China), providing information on changes in anatomy of members of this species during their ontogeny, as well as evidence of morphological differences between populations of this species from Renzidong Cave and from the Wushan Longgupo Site (Chongqing, China).^[473]
• Handa et al. (2026) describe rhinocerotid fossils from the Phra Phut sandpit (Thailand), interpreted as indicative of late Miocene age of the studied assemblage, and report evidence of similarity of composition of the studied assemblage and other late Miocene rhinocerotid assemblages from sandpits in Chaloem Phra Kiat District in Nakhon Ratchasima.^[474]
• Sanisidro & Gutiérrez-Marco (2026) describe fossil material of Brachydiceratherium sp. from the Miocene strata of the Santalla Formation (Spain), representing the first large vertebrate from the El Bierzo Basin reported to date.^[475]
• A study on deciduous teeth and juvenile skulls of members of the genus Chilotherium, providing evidence of utility of dental characters for species discrimination, is published by Kampouridis et al. (2026).^[476]
• Pandolfi, Codrea & Solomon (2026) describe fossil material of a member of the genus Acerorhinus from the Miocene strata from the Crețești 1 site (Romania), with greatest similarity to A. simplex, and refine the species content of the genus Acerorhinus.^[477]
• Titov et al. (2026) describe fossil material of Elasmotherium chaprovicum from the Pleistocene strata from the Taurida Cave (Crimea), including the first upper milk teeth of a member of the genus Elasmotherium reported to date.^[478]
• Ponomarev et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis in the Pleistocene strata from the Komi Republic (Russia), representing the northernmost record of the species in Europe reported to date.^[479]
• Uzunidis & Pandolfi (2026) report evidence of different dynamics of evolution of body mass of the narrow-nosed rhinoceros from Northern Europe and from the Mediterranean, as well as evidence of consistent mixed-feeding strategy in the studied species, with seasonal specialization toward either browsing or grazing in populations near the end of the temporal range of the species.^[480]
• Uzunidis, Pandolfi & Brugal (2026) identify fossil material of the narrow-nosed rhinoceros at the Mas des Caves site (France) belonging to at least nine individuals from different size classes, and report evidence of similar plant selection by individuals of different age.^[481]
• Guðjónsdóttir et al. (2026) sequence a high-coverage genome from woolly rhinoceros tissue preserved within the stomach of a permafrost-preserved wolf from Tumat (Sakha Republic, Russia) and reconstruct the evolutionary history of the woolly rhinoceros on the basis of genomic data from this and two other Siberian individuals, finding no evidence of genomic erosion or a prolonged reduction in population size before the extinction of the species.^[482]
• Lei et al. (2026) reconstruct the population history of the woolly rhinoceros on the basis of data from mitochondrial and nuclear genomes and from habitat modeling, and report evidence of higher genetic diversity in mid-latitude Eurasia compared to regions from high latitudes, as well as evidence of genetic introgression from Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis.^[483]
• Evidence from the study of morphology of petrosals and inner ears of fossil horses, indicating that the ear region is informative for the studied of phylogeny of odd-toed ungulates, is presented by Goodchild et al. (2026).^[484]
• A study on the evolution of the shape of equid skulls is published by Wisniewski & Slater (2026), who find no evidence of a significant impact of the evolution of hypsodont teeth on facial proportions in Equidae.^[485]
• Calderón et al. (2026) present new information on growth and development of teeth of Anchitherium, based on the study of their histology.^[486]
• Evidence from the study of tooth enamel of Miocene Anchitherium, indicative of similar life histories of specimens from Germany and Spain ranging from the MN5 to the MN7/8 interval, is presented by Calderón et al. (2026).^[487]
• Sanz-Pérez et al. (2026) report evidence from the study of isotopic composition of tooth enamel of Hipparion from Miocene (Vallesian) localities in Duero and Madrid basins (Spain) indicative of intensification of seasonality in central Iberian Peninsula by MN 10 interval, as well as indicative of consumption of C₃ vegetation by the studied equids and their ecological flexibility.^[488]
• Dağ et al. (2026) study the composition of the hipparion assemblage from the Miocene strata from the Yamula Reservoir localities (Turkey), and interpret the studied assemblage as consistent with presence of regionally variable mosaic habitats.^[489]
• Becker et al. (2026) describe hipparion fossil material from the late Pliocene Jradzor section (Armenia) and transfer "Hipparion" longipes and "H." fissurae to the genus Cremohipparion.^[490]
• Evidence indicating that occlusal enamel patterns in cheek teeth of Pleistocene equids from Alaska and Yukon cannot be used to reliably differentiate among tooth morphotypes is presented by Landry et al. (2026).^[491]
• Song et al. (2026) determine the affinities of Equus dalianensis on the basis of data from mitochondrial and two nuclear genomes, recovering the studied equid as a member of a lineage within the group of northeast Eurasian wild horse populations, and reporting evidence of contact with eastern Beringian (i.e. American) horses.^[492]

Miscellaneous laurasiatherian research

• A study on the preservation of different kinds of steroids in bones of Ashoroa laticosta, Behemotops katsuiei and an unidentified whale from the Oligocene Morawan Formation (Japan) is published by Umamaheswaran et al. (2026).^[498]
• Matsui, Mitoh & Tsubamoto (2026) identify a purported humerus of a member of the genus Behemotops from the Miocene Chikubetsu Formation (Japan) as actually belonging to a juvenile member of the genus Desmostylus, and interpret the specimen as indicating that members of the genus Desmostylus expanded their range across Hokkaido during the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum.^[499]
• Kramarz & Bond (2026) revise the composition of astrapothere assemblages from the Las Flores Formation (Argentina).^[500]
• Evidence of gradual increase of body mass of macraucheniids throughout their evolutionary history, likely linked to climate changes, is presented by Lobo, Gelfo & de Azevedo (2026).^[501]
• Wilson et al. (2026) determine that early hypsodont notoungulates from the Oligocene Tinguiririca Fauna (Chile) lived in an open, woody habitat, interpret the tooth wear of the studied notoungulates as consistent with a browsing diet, and interpret the evolution of their hypsodonty as unrelated to the expansion of grasslands.^[502]
• Redescription of the anatomy of Puelia plicata is published by Vera, Folino & Scarano (2026).^[503]
• A study on the phylogenetic relationships of toxodontid notoungulates is published by Armella & Deforel (2026).^[504]
• Armella et al. (2026) make the name of the toxodontid Andinotoxodon bolivarensis, originally described in a doctoral dissertation, available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.^[505]
• The first confirmed fossil material of Late Pleistocene Toxodon platensis from the San Luis Province (Argentina), providing information on the intracranial anatomy of members of this species, is described from the Barranquita Formation by Hernández Del Pino et al. (2026).^[506]
• Evidence from the study of tooth wear of Tremacyllus and Paedotherium, interpreted as indicating that pachyrukhine hegetotheriid notoungulates were mainly fruit-seed consumers rather than grazers, is presented by Armella & Croft (2026).^[507]
• A study on the evolution of the morphological similarity to molar teeth in premolar teeth of ungulates, based on data from extant and extinct artiodactyls and perissodactyls, is published by Ashbaugh, Jamniczky & Theodor (2026).^[508]
• A study on tooth wear of early Pleistocene ungulates from the Quibas site (Murcia, Spain), interpreted as indicative of a broad spectrum of feeding behaviours consistent with presence of mosaic environments including grasslands with wooded patches, is published by Ramírez-Pedraza, Agustí & Piñero (2026).^[509]
• Hussain et al. (2026) reconstruct the dietary presences of Pleistocene ungulates from the Pinjor Formation (Pakistan) on the basis of the study of their tooth wear, interpreted as indicating that the studied assemblage was dominated by grazers but also included browsers and mixed-feeders.^[510]
• A study on the composition of the Late Pleistocene carnivoran and ungulate assemblage from the Fusong Xianren Cave (Jilin, China), including common representatives of the Mammuthus-Coelodonta fauna from northeastern China, is published by Liu et al. (2026).^[511]
• Rose et al. (2026) provide new information on the forelimb anatomy of Eurotamandua joresi, interpreted as supporting its affinities with Palaeanodonta.^[512]
• Evidence from micro-computed tomography of the skeleton of Eurotamandua joresi supporting its affinities with palaeanodonts is presented by Rose et al. (2026).^[513]
• Cabasés Bru et al. (2026) study the anatomy of virtual brain endocasts of Metacheiromys marshi, and report evidence that petrosal lobules (controlling eye movements during locomotion) and olfactory bulbs of the studied mammal were larger than in extant pangolins, as well as evidence of presence of well developed orbital gyrus which might be related to the use of a protrusile tongue in mammals specialized in myrmecophagy.^[514]
• Chatar et al. (2026) report evidence from the study of tribosphenic carnassial teeth of hyaenodonts and extant and extinct members of Carnivoramorpha indicative of a trade-off during the evolution of vast majority of the studied mammals resulting in prioritization of either shearing or crushing function of the studied teeth, with only minority of predatory mammals evolving optimized dual function of carnassial teeth.^[515]
• Kort & Ricker (2026) compare pelvic morphology of Sinopa and Thinocyon with those of extant mammals, and argue that extant carnivorans might be imperfect analogs for reconstructions of configuration of musculature and locomotor modes of hyaenodonts.^[516]
• Fischer et al. (2026) study the body mass evolution in European mesonychians, hyaenodonts, oxyaenodonts and carnivoramorphs during the Paleogene, reporting evidence of increase of range of body mass of members of Carnivoramorpha after the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (and before the establishment of carnivoran-dominated faunas related to the Grande Coupure), and interpret the replacement of hyaenodont-dominated faunas in Europe by carnivoran-dominated ones as more likely related to climate changes than caused by competition between the different group of mammalian carnivores.^[517]

Cingulatan research

• Casali et al. (2026) study the phylogenetic affinities of armadillos and their extinct relatives.^[520]
• Redescription of the holotype of Asterostemma barrealense (reinterpreted as an indeterminate member of Propalaehoplophorini) and description of a new glyptodont specimen from the Chinches Formation (San Juan Province, Argentina) assigned to the group Propalaehoplophorini is published by Martini et al. (2026).^[521]
• Guzmán-Gutiérrez (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of Pampatherium sp. from the Pleistocene strata from the El Cedazo creek locality, representing the first record of the genus from Aguascalientes (Mexico).^[522]
• Lagunas-Rodríguez et al. (2026) describe fossil material of Glyptotherium cylindricum from the Pleistocene strata from Puebla (Mexico), and interpret the presence of fossils of G. cylindricum in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and in the Sierra Madre del Sur within the State of Puebla as likely linked to the location of the corridor used by members of the species to disperse into North America.^[523]
• Zamorano, Vezzosi & Mones (2026) describe a caudal tube of Panochthus sp. from the Pleistocene strata (possibly Timbúes Formation) in the Santa Fe Province (Argentina) and reevaluate the validity of Panochthus florensis, considering it to be species inquirenda.^[524]
• Taxonomic revision of late Pliocene to Middle Pleistocene glyptodonts from central Argentina is published by Zurita et al. (2026).^[525]
• Sostillo et al. (2026) provide a systematic review of glyptodonts from the Quaternary strata from eastern and central La Pampa Province (Argentina).^[526]
• García, Blanco & Rinderknecht (2026) provide estimates of body mass of Neoglyptatelus uruguayensis.^[527]
• Corro et al. (2026) revise the type materials of members of the genus Proeutatus from the Santa Cruz Formation (Argentina), and report that the type specimens of the species P. carinatus and P. deleo can be identified with certainty, unlike the type specimens of the species P. oenophorus, P. lagena and P. distans.^[528]
• The first specimen of Eutatus seguini preserved with the entirety of the caudal armor is described from the Pleistocene strata from the Laguna Melincué area (Santa Fe Province, Argentina) by Barasoain et al. (2026).^[529]
• Barasoain et al. (2026) describe fossil material of the big hairy armadillo from the Pleistocene strata of the La Paz Formation (Bolivia), representing the northernmost record of the species reported to date and the first known fossil evidence of presence of the species in high-altitude environments.^[530]

Pilosan research

• A xenarthran metacarpal reported from the Eocene La Meseta Formation (Antarctica) is identified as belonging to an indeterminate sloth by Quaggia, Gelfo & Acosta Hospitaleche (2026).^[531]
• Casali et al. (2026) identify a poorly developed dental alveolus in a specimen of Nothrotherium maquinense from the Pleistocene strata from Brazil, occupying the position of caniniform alveolus in Neogene nothrotheriids, and interpreted as a possible case of partial re-expression of a lost ancestral dental condition in the studied individual.^[532]
• Revision of nematheriine scelidotheriid sloths from the Miocene Santa Cruz Formation (Argentina) is published by Boscaini et al. (2026), who assign all studied fossils to the genus Nematherium, with the majority of them assigned to the species N. angulatum^[533]
• New fossil material of Ocnotherium giganteum, including a nearly complete skull and two partial skeletons, is described from the Pleistocene strata from Brazil by Pujos et al. (2026), who recover O. giganteum as a mylodontine mylodontid.^[534]
• Evidence from the study of a mylodontid coprolite from the Pleistocene strata from the Cueva Cacao 1.A site (Argentina) indicative of a grazing-browsing dietary niche of the producer is presented by Velázquez et al. (2026).^[535]
• Zicos et al. (2026) compare the utility of three ancient DNA extraction methods for recovery of DNA from coprolites of Mylodon darwinii and soil samples from Cueva del Milodón (Chile), and report recovery of both sloth mitochondrial genomes and signatures of local flora.^[536]
• Harper et al. (2026) compare the morphology of the femoral neck in members of the genera Acratocnus, Megalocnus, Neocnus and Parocnus with those of extant xenarthrans, and reconstruct the locomotor behaviors of the studied extinct sloths, supporting the interpretation of Parocnus as primarily terrestrial.^[537]
• Feola et al. (2026) revise the fossil record of ground sloth footprints, and name new ichnotaxa Megatherichnidae, Falciformichnus and Megatherichnum agilis.^[538]