DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 18 Body Size and Intelligence in Hominoid Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 18 Body Size and Intelligence in Hominoid Evolution Chapter 18 ................................ ................................ Body Size and Intelligence in Hominoid ................................ ................................ chapter Evolution ................................ ................................ Carol Ward ................................ Department of Anthropology – Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences ................................ 107 Swallow Hall, University of Missouri ................................ Columbia, MO 65211 USA ................................ [email protected] ................................ Mark Flinn ................................ Department of Anthropology, 107 Swallow Hall, University of Missouri ................................ Columbia, MO 65211 USA ................................ [email protected] ................................ David Begun ................................ Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto ................................ Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada ................................ [email protected] ................................ ................................ Word count: text (6526) XML Typescript c Cambridge University Press – Generated by TechBooks. Body Size and Intelligence in Hominoid Evolution Page 1218 of 1365 A-Head 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ 2 Great apes and humans are the largest brained primates. Aside from a few ................................ 3 extinct subfossil lemurs, they are also the largest in body mass. Body size ................................ 4 is a key aspect of a species’ biology, a large organism having different ................................ 5 energetic, ecological and physical constraints than a small one. Brain size, ................................ 6 insofar as it determines abilities to acquire, process, and act on ................................ 7 information, is also a key aspect of a species’ biology and is linked to body ................................ 8 size. Large animals have different informational problems to solve than do ................................ 9 small ones, hence their respective sensory organs and nervous systems are ................................ 10 sized and organized differently. ................................ 11 Mammalian body and brain size scale consistently with each other ................................c18fig001 12 (Figure 18.1). This relation is generally described by allometric exponents c18rfa014 ................................c18rfa015 13 that vary between 2/3 and 3/4 (e.g., Bauchot & Stephan 1966, 1969; c18rfa041 ................................c18rfa043 14 Hofman 1982; Jerison 1973; Lande 1979; Martin 1981; Martin & Harvey c18rfa053 ................................c18rfa057 15 1985; Stephan 1972). From a paleontological perspective, the body-brain ................................ 16 size relation offers an appealing way to evaluate the cognitive abilities of c18rfa061 ................................c18rfa095 17 fossil taxa, a problem of particular importance for understanding hominid ................................ 18 evolution. ................................ Inset Figure 18.1 about here ................................ XML Typescript c Cambridge University Press – Generated by TechBooks. The Evolution of Thought Page 1219 of 1365 1 A convincing theoretical basis for this general allometric statistical ................................ c18rfa040 2 pattern, however, remains elusive (Deacon 1997; Harvey & Krebs 1990). ................................ 3 Body mass is not a strict determinant of brain size, as species of similar ................................ 4 size can have different brain sizes and cognitive abilities (Pagel & Harvey ................................ c18rfa068 5 1989). In addition, comparative analyses indicate considerable variation ................................ c18rfa068 6 among taxa from general mammalian patterns (Pagel & Harvey 1989). ................................ 7 Hominid brains, for example, are double or more their expected size as ................................ 8 mammals. There are also phylogenetic differences in typical brain-body ................................ 9 size relations within primates that reflect grade shifts in encephalization ................................ c18rfa007 c18rfa008 10 across taxa (Armstrong 1985a, b; Martin & Harvey 1983, Pagel & Harvey ................................ c18rfa059 11 1989). ................................ c18rfa068 12 One reason for the lack of a universal brain-body size correlation ................................ 13 among mammalian species is that factors other than body mass or ................................ 14 metabolism, such as locomotion, diet, predation risk, social structure, and ................................ 15 life history, affect relations between body and brain size (see recent ................................ c18rfa021 16 reviews in de Waal & Tyack 2003; other chapters in this volume). All of ................................ 17 these factors and others may contribute to selective pressures for cognitive ................................ 18 abilities. As such, allometric scaling models developed from analyses of ................................ 19 relations between physical variables such as metabolic rate and body mass ................................ 20 may not be appropriate models for relations between body and brain size. ................................ XML Typescript c Cambridge University Press – Generated by TechBooks. Body Size and Intelligence in Hominoid Evolution Page 1220 of 1365 1 Evolving a large brain depends upon a complex balance of costs and ................................ 2 benefits, which vary from species to species. There are not likely to be ................................ 3 simple explanations based upon simple physical principles. Observed ................................ 4 correlations between brain size and body size, the variability in these ................................ 5 relations, and the reasons underlying phylogenetic differences, require ................................ 6 consideration of both direct and indirect influences. Direct influences ................................ 7 include structural and metabolic constraints on encephalization and ................................ 8 size-related needs: Large-bodied animals are better able to support large ................................ 9 crania and energetically expensive neural tissue than are small-bodied ................................ 10 animals, and larger bodies may require more neurons to control. If this ................................ 11 were all there was to the relation between body size and brain size, then we ................................ 12 would expect simple and consistent statistical associations. However ................................ 13 additional indirect influences can independently affect both body size and ................................ 14 intelligence, including the effects of selective pressures shaping other ................................ 15 aspects of a species’ biology, such as locomotion, diet, predation risk, ................................ 16 social interactions, and life history. If these indirect influences are ................................ 17 important for determining body size-brain size relations, then we expect ................................ 18 more complex and variable statistical patterns, as indicated by analyses of ................................ c18rfa061 19 inter-taxa differences (Martin & Harvey 1985). ................................ 20 Because of the apparent complexities of brain-body relations and ................................ XML Typescript c Cambridge University Press – Generated by TechBooks. The Evolution of Thought Page 1221 of 1365 1 neurobiological differences among extant mammals, simple consideration ................................ 2 of relative brain size provides only an incomplete picture of the cognitive ................................ 3 abilities of fossil species. To understand scaling relations among body size, ................................ 4 brain size, cognition and other aspects of a species’ adaptation, we need to ................................ 5 first understand the underlying selective pressures shaping cognitive ................................ 6 function and related variables. Complex models involving ecological and ................................ 7 social factors are required. Such models may provide new insights into the ................................ 8 causal relations underlying statistical associations between body and brain ................................ 9 size. This chapter first examines the interrelations among multiple relevant ................................ 10 variables and their relations with cognitive capacities and brain size that ................................ 11 apply generally in primates, especially those linked with body size. This ................................ 12 puts us in a stronger position to interpret the cognitive capabilities of ................................ 13 extinct taxa, and therefore to understand the evolution of intelligence in the ................................ 14 hominids. ................................ ................................ A-Head 15 Previous hypotheses relating body mass to intelligence ................................ 16 Logarithmic scaling between brain size and body size in mammals is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2016 Newsletter
    Department Anthropology of Anthropology Newsletter Fall 2015 - Spring 2016 • Vol. 16 Transforming Lives Through Discovery! Welcome Archaeology Field School at Twin Pines 2015 uring the summer of 2015, students in the department of Anthropology The Anthropology students participated in an exciting six-week archaeological field school in the Gila National and alumni profiled here D Forest. Under the direction of Dr. Fumi Arakawa, NMSU professor and director of the are just a few of those University Museum, 16 undergraduate and 5 graduate students excavated the Twin Pines who have received funding Village. and recognition for their research. This is an important Classic Mimbres Phase Site (A.D. 1000- Thanks to new funding 1130) located south of Wall from the College of Arts Lake. The field school operated and Sciences, contributions in collaboration with U.S. from alumni and friends Forest Service archaeologists to the Dean’s Fund for Wendy Sutton and Chris Adams. Excellence and the “Friends Students participated in all phases of Anthropology”, we offer of archaeological fieldwork, grants of up to $500 for including site survey, excavation graduate research. mapping and in-field analysis. “They also had the opportunity We have funded to learn about stewardship of students working both archaeological resources, cultural internationally and 2015 NMSU archaeology field school at Twin Pines heritage management, and best locally, on projects practices for collaborative archaeological investigation,” said Dr. Alexander, head of as diverse as primate NMSU’s Department of Anthropology. behavior, stewardship of archaeological resources, "The project consists of an intensive excavation of a Classic Mimbres site which extends human responses to well back to the Pithouse period,” said Trevor Lea, one of four crew chiefs on the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Gibbon Classification : the Issue of Species and Subspecies
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1988 Gibbon classification : the issue of species and subspecies Erin Lee Osterud Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, and the Genetics and Genomics Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Osterud, Erin Lee, "Gibbon classification : the issue of species and subspecies" (1988). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3925. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5809 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Erin Lee Osterud for the Master of Arts in Anthropology presented July 18, 1988. Title: Gibbon Classification: The Issue of Species and Subspecies. APPROVED BY MEM~ OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Marc R. Feldesman, Chairman Gibbon classification at the species and subspecies levels has been hotly debated for the last 200 years. This thesis explores the reasons for this debate. Authorities agree that siamang, concolor, kloss and hoolock are species, while there is complete lack of agreement on lar, agile, moloch, Mueller's and pileated. The disagreement results from the use and emphasis of different character traits, and from debate on the occurrence and importance of gene flow. GIBBON CLASSIFICATION: THE ISSUE OF SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES by ERIN LEE OSTERUD A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in ANTHROPOLOGY Portland State University 1989 TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES: The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Erin Lee Osterud presented July 18, 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Evolution: a Paleoanthropological Perspective - F.H
    PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Human Evolution: A Paleoanthropological Perspective - F.H. Smith HUMAN EVOLUTION: A PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE F.H. Smith Department of Anthropology, Loyola University Chicago, USA Keywords: Human evolution, Miocene apes, Sahelanthropus, australopithecines, Australopithecus afarensis, cladogenesis, robust australopithecines, early Homo, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Australopithecus africanus/Australopithecus garhi, mitochondrial DNA, homology, Neandertals, modern human origins, African Transitional Group. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Reconstructing Biological History: The Relationship of Humans and Apes 3. The Human Fossil Record: Basal Hominins 4. The Earliest Definite Hominins: The Australopithecines 5. Early Australopithecines as Primitive Humans 6. The Australopithecine Radiation 7. Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo 8. Explaining Early Hominin Evolution: Controversy and the Documentation- Explanation Controversy 9. Early Homo erectus in East Africa and the Initial Radiation of Homo 10. After Homo erectus: The Middle Range of the Evolution of the Genus Homo 11. Neandertals and Late Archaics from Africa and Asia: The Hominin World before Modernity 12. The Origin of Modern Humans 13. Closing Perspective Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary UNESCO – EOLSS The basic course of human biological history is well represented by the existing fossil record, although there is considerable debate on the details of that history. This review details both what is firmly understood (first echelon issues) and what is contentious concerning humanSAMPLE evolution. Most of the coCHAPTERSntention actually concerns the details (second echelon issues) of human evolution rather than the fundamental issues. For example, both anatomical and molecular evidence on living (extant) hominoids (apes and humans) suggests the close relationship of African great apes and humans (hominins). That relationship is demonstrated by the existing hominoid fossil record, including that of early hominins.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Ecology and Adaptation with an Emphasis on Hominoid Evolution
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-1997 Aspects of Ecology and Adaptation with an Emphasis on hominoid Evolution Clare Katharine Stott University of Tennessee, Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Stott, Clare Katharine, "Aspects of Ecology and Adaptation with an Emphasis on hominoid Evolution. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1997. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4234 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Clare Katharine Stott entitled "Aspects of Ecology and Adaptation with an Emphasis on hominoid Evolution." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Andrew Kramer, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Richard Jantz, Lyle Konigsberg Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Clare K. Stott entitled "Aspects of Ecology and Adaptation with an Emphasis on Hominoid Evolution".
    [Show full text]
  • Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All Biologists Use a Single Naming System That Essentially Follows the Practice O
    Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All biologists use a single naming system that essentially follows the practice of Linnaeus. Taxa are always given Latin names (or Latinized ones). This is a label and not a definition. (Homo sapiens – wise man) The name of a species always consists of two words – the genus (generic) name followed by the species (specific) name. Grammatically, the genus is a noun and the species is adjective or another noun in opposition. The genus name is always capitalized and italicized. The species name is italicized only. If you used the genus name already you may use the first letter followed by a period. Homo sapiens, H. sapiens In the rare cases where a subgenus name is used it is capitalized, italicized and put in parentheses after the genus. Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus If a subspecies name is used it comes at the end and is italicized only. E.G. Homo sapiens sapiens Categories above the genus level are capitalized but not italicized. They generally have endings that show the level of classification. ini for tribe (Infraorder), oidea for superfamily, idae for family. Above the superfamily the only rule is that the name must be Latin or Latinized. The Latin names are often anglicized by dropping the ending and it is not normally capitalized. Hominidae – hominid. Technically the full name of the taxon should include the name of its inventor and the date but this is only done if the discussion is concerning the taxonomy of the name. Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 Ideally, a taxon should have only one name, but some have been given more than one and there is a disagreement over which one has priority or which one is better.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Vestibular Apparatus In
    RESEARCH ARTICLE The evolution of the vestibular apparatus in apes and humans Alessandro Urciuoli1*, Cle´ ment Zanolli2, Ame´ lie Beaudet3,4, Jean Dumoncel5, Fre´ de´ ric Santos2, Salvador Moya` -Sola` 1,6,7, David M Alba1* 1Institut Catala` de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain; 2Laboratoire PACEA, UMR 5199 CNRS, Universite´ de Bordeaux, Pessac, France; 3School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; 4Department of Anatomy, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; 5Laboratoire AMIS, UMR 5288 CNRS, Universite´ de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; 6Institucio´ Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avanc¸ats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain; 7Unitat d’Antropologia (Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia), Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain Abstract Phylogenetic relationships among extinct hominoids (apes and humans) are controversial due to pervasive homoplasy and the incompleteness of the fossil record. The bony labyrinth might contribute to this debate, as it displays strong phylogenetic signal among other mammals. However, the potential of the vestibular apparatus for phylogenetic reconstruction among fossil apes remains understudied. Here we test and quantify the phylogenetic signal embedded in the vestibular morphology of extant anthropoids (monkeys, apes and humans) and two extinct apes (Oreopithecus and Australopithecus) as captured by a deformation-based 3D geometric morphometric analysis. We also reconstruct the ancestral morphology of various hominoid clades based on phylogenetically-informed maximum likelihood methods. Besides revealing strong phylogenetic signal in the vestibule and enabling the proposal of potential *For correspondence: synapomorphies for various hominoid clades, our results confirm the relevance of vestibular [email protected] (AU); morphology for addressing the controversial phylogenetic relationships of fossil apes.
    [Show full text]
  • A Unique Middle Miocene European Hominoid and the Origins of the Great Ape and Human Clade Salvador Moya` -Sola` A,1, David M
    A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade Salvador Moya` -Sola` a,1, David M. Albab,c, Sergio Alme´ cijac, Isaac Casanovas-Vilarc, Meike Ko¨ hlera, Soledad De Esteban-Trivignoc, Josep M. Roblesc,d, Jordi Galindoc, and Josep Fortunyc aInstitucio´Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avanc¸ats at Institut Catala`de Paleontologia (ICP) and Unitat d’Antropologia Biolo`gica (Dipartimento de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal, i Ecologia), Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Edifici ICP, Campus de Bellaterra s/n, 08193 Cerdanyola del Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain; bDipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita`degli Studi di Firenze, Via G. La Pira 4, 50121 Florence, Italy; cInstitut Catala`de Paleontologia, Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Edifici ICP, Campus de Bellaterra s/n, 08193 Cerdanyola del Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain; and dFOSSILIA Serveis Paleontolo`gics i Geolo`gics, S.L. c/ Jaume I nu´m 87, 1er 5a, 08470 Sant Celoni, Barcelona, Spain Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved March 4, 2009 (received for review November 20, 2008) The great ape and human clade (Primates: Hominidae) currently sediments by the diggers and bulldozers. After 6 years of includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. fieldwork, 150 fossiliferous localities have been sampled from the When, where, and from which taxon hominids evolved are among 300-m-thick local stratigraphic series of ACM, which spans an the most exciting questions yet to be resolved. Within the Afro- interval of 1 million years (Ϸ12.5–11.3 Ma, Late Aragonian, pithecidae, the Kenyapithecinae (Kenyapithecini ؉ Equatorini) Middle Miocene).
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Primate Evolution
    8. Primate Evolution Jonathan M. G. Perry, Ph.D., The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Stephanie L. Canington, B.A., The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Learning Objectives • Understand the major trends in primate evolution from the origin of primates to the origin of our own species • Learn about primate adaptations and how they characterize major primate groups • Discuss the kinds of evidence that anthropologists use to find out how extinct primates are related to each other and to living primates • Recognize how the changing geography and climate of Earth have influenced where and when primates have thrived or gone extinct The first fifty million years of primate evolution was a series of adaptive radiations leading to the diversification of the earliest lemurs, monkeys, and apes. The primate story begins in the canopy and understory of conifer-dominated forests, with our small, furtive ancestors subsisting at night, beneath the notice of day-active dinosaurs. From the archaic plesiadapiforms (archaic primates) to the earliest groups of true primates (euprimates), the origin of our own order is characterized by the struggle for new food sources and microhabitats in the arboreal setting. Climate change forced major extinctions as the northern continents became increasingly dry, cold, and seasonal and as tropical rainforests gave way to deciduous forests, woodlands, and eventually grasslands. Lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers—once diverse groups containing many species—became rare, except for lemurs in Madagascar where there were no anthropoid competitors and perhaps few predators. Meanwhile, anthropoids (monkeys and apes) emerged in the Old World, then dispersed across parts of the northern hemisphere, Africa, and ultimately South America.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Primates
    AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 1 of 16 www.accessscience.com Fossil primates Contributed by: Eric Delson Publication year: 2014 Extinct members of the order of mammals to which humans belong. All current classifications divide the living primates into two major groups (suborders): the Strepsirhini or “lower” primates (lemurs, lorises, and bushbabies) and the Haplorhini or “higher” primates [tarsiers and anthropoids (New and Old World monkeys, greater and lesser apes, and humans)]. Some fossil groups (omomyiforms and adapiforms) can be placed with or near these two extant groupings; however, there is contention whether the Plesiadapiformes represent the earliest relatives of primates and are best placed within the order (as here) or outside it. See also: FOSSIL; MAMMALIA; PHYLOGENY; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PRIMATES. Vast evidence suggests that the order Primates is a monophyletic group, that is, the primates have a common genetic origin. Although several peculiarities of the primate bauplan (body plan) appear to be inherited from an inferred common ancestor, it seems that the order as a whole is characterized by showing a variety of parallel adaptations in different groups to a predominantly arboreal lifestyle, including anatomical and behavioral complexes related to improved grasping and manipulative capacities, a variety of locomotor styles, and enlargement of the higher centers of the brain. Among the extant primates, the lower primates more closely resemble forms that evolved relatively early in the history of the order, whereas the higher primates represent a group that evolved more recently (Fig. 1). A classification of the primates, as accepted here, appears above. Early primates The earliest primates are placed in their own semiorder, Plesiadapiformes (as contrasted with the semiorder Euprimates for all living forms), because they have no direct evolutionary links with, and bear few adaptive resemblances to, any group of living primates.
    [Show full text]
  • Australopiths Wading? Homo Diving?
    Symposium: Water and Human Evolution, April 30th 1999, University Gent, Flanders, Belgium Proceedings Australopiths wading? Homo diving? http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://www.flash.net/~hydra9/marcaat.html Marc Verhaegen & Stephen Munro – 23 July 1999 Abstract Asian pongids (orangutans) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) split 14-10 million years ago, possibly in the Middle East, or elsewhere in Eurasia, where the great ape fossils of 12-8 million years ago display pongid and/or hominid features. In any case, it is likely that the ancestors of the African apes, australopithecines and humans, lived on the Arabian-African continent 8-6 million years ago, when they split into gorillas and humans-chimpanzees. They could have frequently waded bipedally, like mangrove proboscis monkeys, in the mangrove forests between Eurasia and Africa, and partly fed on hard-shelled fruits and oysters like mangrove capuchin monkeys: thick enamel plus stone tool use is typically seen in capuchins, hominids and sea otters. The australopithecines might have entered the African inland along rivers and lakes. Their dentition suggests they ate mostly fruits, hard grass-like plants, and aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV). The fossil data indicates that the early australopithecines of 4-3 million years ago lived in waterside forests or woodlands; and their larger, robust relatives of 2-1 million years ago in generally more open milieus near marshes and reedbeds, where they could have waded bipedally. Some anthropologists believe the present-day African apes evolved from australopithecine-like ancestors, which would imply that knuckle-walking gorillas and chimpanzees evolved in parallel from wading- climbing ‘aquarborealists’.
    [Show full text]
  • Allometric Scaling in the Dentition of Primates and Prediction of Body Weight from Tooth Size in Fossils
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 58%-100 (1982) Allometric Scaling in the Dentition of Primates and Prediction of Body Weight From Tooth Size in Fossils PHILIP D. GINGERICH, B. HOLLY SMITH, AND KAREN ROSENBERG Museum of Paleontology (P.D.G.)and Department of Anthropology (B.H.S. and K.R.), The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 KEY WORDS Primate dentition, Allometry, Body size, Adapidae, Hominoidea ABSTRACT Tooth size varies exponentially with body weight in primates. Logarithmic transformation of tooth crown area and body weight yields a linear model of slope 0.67 as an isometric (geometric) baseline for study of dental allometry. This model is compared with that predicted by metabolic scaling (slope = 0.75). Tarsius and other insectivores have larger teeth for their body size than generalized primates do, and they are not included in this analysis. Among generalized primates, tooth size is highly correlated with body size. Correlations of upper and lower cheek teeth with body size range from 0.90-0.97, depending on tooth position. Central cheek teeth (P: and M:) have allometric coefficients ranging from 0.57-0.65, falling well below geometric scaling. Anterior and posterior cheek teeth scale at or above metabolic scaling. Considered individually or as a group, upper cheek teeth scale allometrically with lower coefficients than corresponding lower cheek teeth; the reverse is true for incisors. The sum of crown areas for all upper cheek teeth scales significantly below geometric scaling, while the sum of crown areas for all lower cheek teeth approximates geometric scaling. Tooth size can be used to predict the body weight of generalized fossil primates.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancestral Facial Morphology of Old World Higher Primates (Anthropoidea/Catarrhini/Miocene/Cranium/Anatomy) BRENDA R
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, pp. 5267-5271, June 1991 Evolution Ancestral facial morphology of Old World higher primates (Anthropoidea/Catarrhini/Miocene/cranium/anatomy) BRENDA R. BENEFIT* AND MONTE L. MCCROSSINt *Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901; and tDepartment of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Communicated by F. Clark Howell, March 11, 1991 ABSTRACT Fossil remains of the cercopithecoid Victoia- (1, 5, 6). Contrasting craniofacial configurations of cercopithe- pithecus recently recovered from middle Miocene deposits of cines and great apes are, in consequence, held to be indepen- Maboko Island (Kenya) provide evidence ofthe cranial anatomy dently derived with regard to the ancestral catarrhine condition of Old World monkeys prior to the evolutionary divergence of (1, 5, 6). This reconstruction has formed the basis of influential the extant subfamilies Colobinae and Cercopithecinae. Victoria- cladistic assessments ofthe phylogenetic relationships between pithecus shares a suite ofcraniofacial features with the Oligocene extant and extinct catarrhines (1, 2). catarrhine Aegyptopithecus and early Miocene hominoid Afro- Reconstructions of the ancestral catarrhine morphotype pithecus. AU three genera manifest supraorbital costae, anteri- are based on commonalities of subordinate morphotypes for orly convergent temporal lines, the absence of a postglabellar Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea (1, 5, 6). Broadly distrib- fossa, a moderate to long snout, great facial
    [Show full text]