DOCSLIB.ORG

Enamel Microwear Texture Properties of IGF 11778 (Oreopithecus Bambolii) from the Late Miocene of Baccinello, Italy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enamel Microwear Texture Properties of IGF 11778 (Oreopithecus Bambolii) from the Late Miocene of Baccinello, Italy doie-pub 10.4436/JASS.91006 ahead of print JASs Reports doi: 10.4436/jass.89003 Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 91 (2013), pp. 201-217 Enamel microwear texture properties of IGF 11778 (Oreopithecus bambolii) from the late Miocene of Baccinello, Italy Frank L’Engle Williams Department of Anthropology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3998, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA e mail: [email protected] Summary - Late Miocene Oreopithecus bambolii has been posited as a folivore from its pronounced molar shearing crests. However, scanning electron microscopy yields conflicting results with one study ofOreopithecus showing folivory and another indicating a coarser diet was consumed. To address this debate, the dietary proclivities of the well-known IGF 11778 Oreopithecus bambolii specimen are reconstructed by comparing the enamel texture properties of this specimen to extant Alouatta palliata (n = 11), Cebus apella (n = 13), Gorilla gorilla (n = 9), Lophocebus albigena (n = 15), Pan troglodytes (n = 17) and Trachypithecus cristatus (n = 12). Dental microwear is captured by scanning facet 9, a Phase II facet on the hypoconid surface, using white-light confocal microscopy at 100x. The scanning was followed by scale-sensitive fractal analysis, yielding four texture characteristics. These were ranked before ANOVA with post-hoc tests of significance and multivariate analyses were conducted. Oreopithecus specimen IGF 11778 does not match any of the extant taxa consistently but in some analyses is associated with Lophocebus, and secondarily with Pan, Gorilla and Cebus outliers suggesting mixed-fruit and hard-object feeding characterized at least a portion of its diet. The partially open habitat of late Miocene Baccinello may have had resources with mechanically resistant foods, or foods found near ground level were consumed. Hard, brittle foods, insects, and or extraneous grit may have contributed to the greater use-wear complexity of the enamel surface observed in IGF 11778 compared to extant folivores. IGF 11778 does not exhibit the degree of anisotropy characterizing Trachypithecus and Alouatta. The partial resemblance of IGF 11778 to some great ape specimens may indicate intermittent extractive and or terrestrial foraging. Keywords – Lophocebus, Hard-object feeding, Leaf consumption, Hominoid, Miocene apes. Introduction 1986a,b; Jungers, 1987; Köhler & Moyà-Solà, 1997; Moyà-Solà et al., 1999, 2005; Rook et al., The “1958” or Florence skeleton, is a remark- 1996, 1999, 2004; Sarmiento, 1987; Sarmiento ably complete but severely crushed specimen & Marcus, 2000; Straus, 1962; Susman, 2004, found within the lignitic deposits of Baccinello, 2005; Szalay & Delson, 1979; Szalay & Langdon, Tuscany. The fossil preserves the upper and lower 1987; Wunderlich et al., 1999). limb skeleton, as well as jaws, teeth and cranial Given its unusually primitive morphology fragments providing insight into the relation- (Begun, 2002), the phylogenetic placement ship between the gnathic elements, cranial size of IGF 11778 and other fossils attributed to and locomotion for a single individual. While Oreopithecus has been equivocal (Delson, 1986; more is known about IGF 11778 than any other Rook et al., 1996), echoing debates about the Miocene hominoid individual (Begun, 2002), taxonomic attribution of the first Oreopithecus debate about its diet, taxonomy, anatomy and fossil discovered at Monte Bamboli in 1872 locomotion remain unresolved (Aiello, 1981; (Gentili et al., 1998). A revitalization of inter- Delson, 1986; Drapeau & Ward, 2007; Harrison, est in Oreopithecus occurred with the recovery the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com 202 Enamel microwear textures of IGF 11778 of IGF 11778 (Hürzeler, 1958; Straus, 1958). Macaca and colobines such as Mesopithecus entered Hürzeler (1958, 1960) suggested Oreopithecus Europe using different routes (Gentili et al., 1998; bambolii belonged within the human line- Harrison, 1986a). Oreopithecus was probably the age based on a morphological analysis of IGF last surviving taxon of a broad radiation of west- 11778 and other specimens. Classified within ern European Miocene hominoids. All of them the Cercopithecoidea from its cuspidate molars except Oreopithecus appear to have become extinct and other dental characteristics (Delson, 1986; by about 9.6 Ma during the “Vallesian Crisis” Szalay & Delson, 1979), Oreopithecus was also where deciduous species began to dominate the referred to the Hominoidea on the basis of post- formerly tropical/subtropical landscapes, reflect- cranial characteristics (Rook et al., 1996; Straus, ing increased seasonality (Rook et al., 2000). 1958), and to its own family, the Oreopithecidae Oreopithecus survived the “Vallesian Crisis” (Carnieri & Mallegni, 2003; Harrison, 1986b; in part because of its isolation, in part from its Hürzeler, 1958). useful morphological adaptations but eventu- A reconstruction of the skull of IGF 11778 ally became extinct around 7 Ma when the indicated a resemblance to the great apes Tuscan-Sardinia paleobioprovince reconnected (Clarke, 1997). The preservation of several with peninsular Europe (Casanovas-Vilar et long bones allowed for the relative lengths to al., 2011). The occurrence of Oreopithecus was be compared to other primates, and IGF 11778 bracketed within a time interval between 9.5 and is most similar to female Pongo (Jungers, 1987) 6.0 Ma using biochronological controls from suggesting slow quadramanous arboreal clam- continental Europe (Rook et al., 2000). It was bering. Body size for IGF 11778 from femoral among the most abundant fossil taxa within the head circumference was estimated to be 32 kg pre-Messinian mammal-bearing biostratigraphic with 95% confidence limits providing a range of units of southern Tuscany (Rook et al., 2011). 30.2 - 33.9 kg (Jungers, 1987). This was sur- Baccinello, from which IGF 11778 derives, was prisingly large because the teeth of Oreopithecus dated to the upper Miocene, corresponding to are proportionally small (Jungers, 1990; Rook et MN 12 and MN 13 (Begun, 2002; Gentili et al., 2004). Oreopithecus bambolii can be char- al., 1998). A mean 40Ar/39Ar date of 7.55 ± acterized as microdont given the relatively small 0.03 Ma was obtained from an exposed tephra cheek teeth and canines with respect to recon- from the Passonaio section of the Baccinello- structed body mass (Alba et al., 2001). However, Cinigiano basin, corresponding to the middle of the use of tooth size as a proxy for body size is the Oreopithecus-bearing succession (Rook et al., complicated by outliers, such as Australopithecus 2000). More recently, paleomagnetostratigraphy and Paranthropus (Jungers, 1987). Nevertheless, has been applied to the Baccinello-Cinigiano tooth size, shape and microwear provide unique basin and yielded dates over 8.1 Ma for the old- insights into the dietary ecology of extinct forms. est deposits and between 7.1 and 6.7 Ma for the youngest (Rook et al., 2011). Paleogeographic evidence suggested that the Paleoecology, chronology and environment Oreopithecus inhabited was varied paleogeography and likely included swampy, forested areas and drier uplands (Azzaroli et al., 1986). Oreopithecus Oreopithecus is considered highly autapomor- from Baccinello is part of the Baccinello-Cinigiano phic in its craniodental and postcranial morphol- basin bordered by the Ombrone River valley ogy, possibly stemming from its endemic isolation and the Amiata Mountain in southern Tuscany in the late Miocene Tuscan-Sardinia bioprovince (Benvenuti et al., 2001; Rook et al., 2000) and (Begun, 2002; Gentili et al., 1998). The unique is distinct from other late Miocene bioprovinces fauna of Italy during the late Miocene suggests in Italy (Rook et al., 2006). The Baccinello that Oreopithecus and early papionins such as deposits include four vertebrate-bearing levels. F. L’Engle Williams 203 The V1, V2 and V3 layers were the first to be requirements derived from the consumption of identified as distinct from the F1 and F2 lay- large quantities of leaves or terrestrial herbaceous ers bearing only molluscan faunas. An older vegetation as in Gorilla (Head et al., 2011), or vertebrate-bearing biostratigraphic unit was later leaves, large numbers of insects and other fauna identified as V0 (Benvenuti et al., 2001; Rook et as in Pan (McGrew, 1992). Considering the esti- al., 1996). Oreopithecus bambolii was found in mated body size of Oreopithecus, the relative brain the V0, V1 and V2 biostratigraphic units, but size was small (Harrison, 1986b) perhaps the was replaced by Mesopithecus in V3 (Matson et result of secondary de-encephalization related to al., 2012). The endemic mammalian taxa of the a diet highly concentrated on folivorous resources Tuscan-Sardinian insular region from V0, V1 (Begun, 2002). The high-cusped molars and and V2 differed from continental European and small incisors of Oreopithecus are similar to those African forms and have been identified as the of extant colobines which show a number of Oreopithecus Zone Faunas (Bernor et al., 2001; adaptations to folivory (Szalay & Delson, 1979). Chesi et al., 2009; Delfino & Rook, 2008; Rook Researchers have also relied on dental micro- et al., 2006), an ecological isolate for over 2 Ma. wear to reconstruct the dietary preferences of The extinction of Oreopithecus may have Oreopithecus. For example, Carnieri & Mallegni possibly derived from increased variability in (2003) found a diet consistent with folivory. Ungar flooded zones and in fluvial discharge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hands-On Human Evolution: a Laboratory Based Approach
    Hands-on Human Evolution: A Laboratory Based Approach Developed by Margarita Hernandez Center for Precollegiate Education and Training Author: Margarita Hernandez Curriculum Team: Julie Bokor, Sven Engling A huge thank you to….. Contents: 4. Author’s note 5. Introduction 6. Tips about the curriculum 8. Lesson Summaries 9. Lesson Sequencing Guide 10. Vocabulary 11. Next Generation Sunshine State Standards- Science 12. Background information 13. Lessons 122. Resources 123. Content Assessment 129. Content Area Expert Evaluation 131. Teacher Feedback Form 134. Student Feedback Form Lesson 1: Hominid Evolution Lab 19. Lesson 1 . Student Lab Pages . Student Lab Key . Human Evolution Phylogeny . Lab Station Numbers . Skeletal Pictures Lesson 2: Chromosomal Comparison Lab 48. Lesson 2 . Student Activity Pages . Student Lab Key Lesson 3: Naledi Jigsaw 77. Lesson 3 Author’s note Introduction Page The validity and importance of the theory of biological evolution runs strong throughout the topic of biology. Evolution serves as a foundation to many biological concepts by tying together the different tenants of biology, like ecology, anatomy, genetics, zoology, and taxonomy. It is for this reason that evolution plays a prominent role in the state and national standards and deserves thorough coverage in a classroom. A prime example of evolution can be seen in our own ancestral history, and this unit provides students with an excellent opportunity to consider the multiple lines of evidence that support hominid evolution. By allowing students the chance to uncover the supporting evidence for evolution themselves, they discover the ways the theory of evolution is supported by multiple sources. It is our hope that the opportunity to handle our ancestors’ bone casts and examine real molecular data, in an inquiry based environment, will pique the interest of students, ultimately leading them to conclude that the evidence they have gathered thoroughly supports the theory of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Isotopic Evidence for the Timing of the Dietary Shift Toward C4 Foods in Eastern African Paranthropus Jonathan G
    Isotopic evidence for the timing of the dietary shift toward C4 foods in eastern African Paranthropus Jonathan G. Wynna,1, Zeresenay Alemsegedb, René Bobec,d, Frederick E. Grinee, Enquye W. Negashf, and Matt Sponheimerg aDivision of Earth Sciences, National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA 22314; bDepartment of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637; cSchool of Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, United Kingdom; dGorongosa National Park, Sofala, Mozambique; eDepartment of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794; fCenter for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052; and gDepartment of Anthropology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80302 Edited by Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved July 28, 2020 (received for review April 2, 2020) New approaches to the study of early hominin diets have refreshed the early evolution of the genus. Was the diet of either P. boisei or interest in how and when our diets diverged from those of other P. robustus similar to that of the earliest members of the genus, or did African apes. A trend toward significant consumption of C4 foods in thedietsofbothdivergefromanearliertypeofdiet? hominins after this divergence has emerged as a landmark event in Key to addressing the pattern and timing of dietary shift(s) in human evolution, with direct evidence provided by stable carbon Paranthropus is an appreciation of the morphology and dietary isotope studies. In this study, we report on detailed carbon isotopic habits of the earliest member of the genus, Paranthropus evidence from the hominin fossil record of the Shungura and Usno aethiopicus, and how those differ from what is observed in later Formations, Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia, which elucidates the pat- representatives of the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingdom =Animalia Phylum =Chordata Subphylum =Vertebrata Class =Mammalia Order =Primates I. PARTIAL
    Kingdom =Animalia '' Phylum =Chordata '' Subphylum =Vertebrata '' Class =Mammalia '' Order =Primates 130-132 I. PARTIAL TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF PREHISTORIC AND CONTEMPORARY PRIMATES 176-187 197-198/Lab 7.II. Suborder Infraorder Superfamily Family Genus Species Common Name Prosimii [tree shrew = insectivore] (Strepsirhini) lemur 132-134 aye-aye 188-191 loris and bush baby tarsier Anthropoidea Platyrrhini *Parapithecus (basal anthropoid) (Haplorhini) 134-136 *Apidium (basal anthropoid) 134-138 Ceboidea New World monkey 188-191 Catarrhini *Propliopithecus (basal catarrhine) 136-138 *Aegyptopithecus (basal catarrhine) Cercopithecoidea Cercopithecidae Old World monkey 124-126 Macaca macaque Papio baboon Colobidae Colobus colobus monkey Presbytis langur Hominoidea *Proconsulidae *Proconsul 138-143 191-193 Lab 7. II. D. *Oreopithecidea *Oreopithecus Hylobatidae Hylobates gibbon *Pliopithecidae *Pliopithecus Pongidae *Dryopithecus *dryopithecus *Sivapithecus *ramapithecus *kenyapithecus *ouranopithecus *Gigantopithecus Pongo orangutan Panidae Pan traglodytes chimpanzee Pan paniscus bonobo (“pygmy chimpanzee”) Pan ? Gorilla gorilla Mountain gorilla Gorilla Western lowland g. 202-204 Hominidae *Ardipithecus *ramidus 213-218 1 228-237 *Australopithecus *anamensis 241-245 *afarensis Lucy / First Family Lab 8 *africanus southern ape *garhi *[aka Paranthropus]1 *aethiopicus *boisei Zinj *robustus *Kenyanthropus *platyops 1 237-238 Homo *rudolfensis ER-1470 245-247 *habilis human Ch. 11 *erectus Java / Peking “Man” Lab 10 sapiens Mary / John Chs. 12-13 Lab 12 An * marks groups known only through fossils. Compare: FIGURE 6-7 Primate taxonomic classification, p. 131 FIGURE 6-8 Revised partial classification of the primates, p. 132 FIGURE 8-1 Classification chart, modified from Linnaeus p. 177 FIGURE 8-15 Major events in early primate evolution, p. 191 Virtual Lab 1, section II, parts A-D Primate Classification 1(Note: Australopithecus and Paranthropus make up a “Subfamily” called Australopithecinae, more commonly known as Australopithecines.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern of Cranial Ontogeny in Populations of Gorilla and Pan
    PATTERN OF CRANIAL ONTOGENY IN POPULATIONS OF GORILLA AND PAN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY JASON S. MASSEY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY KIERAN P. MCNULTY June 2018 © Jason S. Massey, 2018 Acknowledgments I am so deeply indebted to my advisor Dr. Kieran McNulty. I have known Kieran for many years, and in that time, he has provided me with every opportunity to succeed. My first field experience was at his site in Kenya, and since then he has guided me through stimulating areas of study, introduced me to colleagues that have expanded my research interests, and challenged me to be a better and focused researcher. I am an anthropologist because of him. Likewise, I could not have accomplished this without a strong and dedicated committee. I am so grateful for Drs. Martha Tappen, Michael Wilson, David Fox, and Anthony Weinhaus. The interesting discussions, challenging questions, access to data, and support over the many years have been integral to my success. I am also indebted to Drs. Bernard Wood and Shannon McFarlin. This dissertation would not exist without their dedicated support, funding, and patience. They have given me access to needed specimens and many summers of exciting fieldwork. I thank the Department of Anthropology and the community therein for so many years of emotional and academic support. In particular, I would like to thank Kara Kersteter, Nora Last, Megan Whaley, and Barbara London. Additionally, many summers of data collection and fieldwork were funded by numerous block grants and the Graduate Research Partnership Program.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Meet the Living Primates
    5. Meet the Living Primates Stephanie Etting, Ph.D., Sacramento City College Learning Objectives • Learn how primates are different from other mammals • Understand how studying non-human primates is important in anthropology • Identify different types of traits that we use to evaluate primate taxa • Describe the major primate taxa using their key characteristics • Understand your place in nature by learning your taxonomic classification One of the best parts of teaching anthropology for me is getting to spend time at zoos watching primates. What I also find interesting is watching people watch primates. I have very often heard a parent and child walk up to a chimpanzee enclosure and exclaim “Look at the monkeys!” The parent and child often don’t know that a chimpanzee is not a monkey, nor are they likely to know that chimpanzees share more than 98% of their DNA with us. What strikes me as significant is that, although most people do not know the difference between a monkey, an ape, and a lemur, they nonetheless recognize something in the animals as being similar to themselves. What people probably mean when they say “monkey” is actually “primate,” a term that refers to all organisms classified within the Order Primates and also the subject of this chapter. You may be wondering why a field dedicated to the study of humans would include the study of non- human animals.Because humans are primates, we share a wide range of behavioral and morphological traits with the other species who also fall into this group. In Chapter 2, you learned about the nature of Linnaean classification, the system we use for organizing life-forms.
    [Show full text]
  • What Species of Hominid Are Found in the Early Pliocene?
    Last class • What species of hominid are found in the early Pliocene? • Where are they found? • What are their distinguishing anatomical characteristics? • How do the Australopithecines differ from the possible hominids? Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Taxonomy • Superfamily: Hominoidea • Family: Hominidae • Subfamily: Homininae • Tribe: Australopithecini Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Cast of Characters Orrorin tugenensis Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus kadabba Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus bahrelghazali Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecines • What are the common characteristics of the early Australopithecines? • How do the species differ from one another? • When does each fall in time and space? • What are the possible phylogenies of these species? Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecus afarensis • 3.9-2.9 mya • Short, broad pelvis • tilted femurs • In-line big toe • Sagittal crest • Sexually dimorphic • Small bodied • Small brain 5 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecus bahrelghazali • 3.5-3.0 mya • Western africa - Chad • Same as A. afarensis? 7 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Kenyanthropus platyops 8 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Kenyanthropus lateral 9 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 A. afarensis and K. platyops 10 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Kenyanthropus platyops • 3.5 mya • Flat face • Small molars • Australopithecus? Even A. afarensis? 11 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Evolutionary Relationships 12 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 13 Tuesday, April 19, 2011
    [Show full text]
  • FLASHCARDS > Genera Australopithecus and Paranthropus
    FLASHCARDS > Genera Australopithecus and Paranthropus There are over five known species in the genus Australopithecus and at least three known species in the genus Paranthropus. It is essential, when learning about Human evolution, to know the traits that are used to identify the different hominin fossil species. These flashcards will help you learn about the significance of some of the most well-known fossils, and their identifying traits. Instructions for Printing Flashcards: 1. Print on both sides of one piece of paper, preferably cardstock or other heavy-weight paper. For best results, use the “duplex” or two-sided printing option. Or flip the paper after printing the first side. 2. After printing the first side, flip the paper over and feed back into the printer. The cards are formatted to print the correct information on the appropriate side of the card. • Note: using a higher printing resolution will improve the quality of the images. 3. Cut out the flashcards along the borders. 4. Have fun and learn! This set includes the fossil hominins: • AL-288, “Lucy” • “Taung Child” • OH 5, “Nutcracker Man” • KNM-WT 17000, “The Black Skull” ©eFOSSILS 2007 www.eFossils.org and www.eLucy.org FLASHCARDS > Genera Australopithecus and Paranthropus This page intentionally left blank. ©eFOSSILS 2007 www.eFossils.org and www.eLucy.org AL 288-1 “Taung Child” OH 5 KNM-WT 17000 1 “Taung Child” AL 288-1 Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus afarensis Nickname: “Lucy” Discovery Who: Raymond Dart Discovery Where: Taung, South Africa Who: Donald Johanson, Yves Coppens When: 1924 and Tim White Where: The Hadar Site, Afar Region, Ethiopia Fossil When: November 24, 1974 Geological Age: ~3-<2.5 million years Age: Juvenile, 3-5 years old Fossil Brain Capacity: 410 cubic centimeters Geological Age: 3.2 million years (440 cc as an adult) Sex: Female Age: Adult, 25 years Notables Stature: 107 centimeters (3’6”) • The first Australopithecine discovered Weight: 28 kilograms (65 lbs) • Well preserved endocranial cast of the brain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Zinjanthropus Boisei
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Biological Sciences Faculty Research Biological Sciences Spring 3-2007 The volutE ion of Zinjanthropus boisei Paul J. Constantino Biological Sciences, [email protected] Bernard A. Wood George Washington University Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, Biology Commons, Paleobiology Commons, and the Paleontology Commons Recommended Citation Constantino, Paul J. and Wood, Bernard A., "The vE olution of Zinjanthropus boisei" (2007). Biological Sciences Faculty Research. 38. http://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/38 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:49–62 (2007) ARTICLES The Evolution of Zinjanthropus boisei PAUL CONSTANTINO AND BERNARD WOOD Many people assume that OH 5, the type specimen of Paranthropus boisei, HISTORY OF DISCOVERY collected in 1959, was the first evidence of that taxon to be found, but OH 3, The first evidence of a megadont recovered in 1955, predated the discovery of OH 5 by four years. Thus, Para- hominin (that is, a hominin with very nthropus boisei recently celebrated the equivalent of its fiftieth birthday. This large postcanine tooth crowns relative review marks that milestone by examining the way our understanding of this to its estimated body size) from East taxon has changed during its fifty, or so, year history. Africa was found at Olduvai Gorge in 1955 (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Ape Teacher Packet.Indd
    Section 3 — Ape Physical Characteristics OVERVIEW The physical anatomy of apes is essential to their adaptive strategies. Compared to humans, their closest living relatives, ape skeletons are more robust and are aligned for quadrupedalism. Their long, strong arms are characteristic and enable them to move arboreally. The ape dental formula is the same as humans, but there is an emphasis on the front teeth, and the canine teeth can be pronounced in some ape males, primarily for display purposes. Highly intelligent and complex, it follows that the apes have a cranial capacity that is large in comparison to body size. The apes share some general physical characteristics, and also exhibit some structural differences that are essential to their adaptive life strategies. Ape skeletons Skulls In comparison to human cranial anatomy, apes generally display a more projecting face, a larger brow ridge, a longer face, larger teeth in the front than in the back, larger jaws, and a posteriorly placed foramen magnum (the site on the skull where the spinal cord connects). A posteriorly placed foramen magnum is associated with quadrupedalism, while an anteriorly placed foramen magnum, like that in humans, is associated with bipedalism (allowing the head to sit atop the spine). The gorilla has a distinct sagittal crest atop the cranium. This bony ridge at the top of the skull is a site for attachment of massive muscles for mastication. The gorilla, a large folivore who eats tough plants, requires such anatomy for its diet. Postcranial In comparison to human postcranial anatomy (skeletal anatomy that is below the skull), the ape pelvis is longer and narrower.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Evolution Spring 2012
    Human evolution Spring 2012 Introduction: As an introduction to the big picture on human evolution, you will examine some of the human remains, stone tools, and dating methods of the field of paleanthropology. You may want to review the lecture and reading materials relation to the history of life, evolution, and human evolution The Taxonomic Hierarchy Kingdom-- Animalia Phylum--Chordata Class--Mammalia Order--Primates Suborder - - Haplorrhini Superfamily - - Hominoidea (includes Monkeys, Baboons, Gibbons, and all Hominidae) Family--Hominidae "hominids" (includes Australopithecus, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Human [maybe Orangutan]) Subtribe Homininae (includes Australopithecus, Homo, Paranthropus, Pan …) Genus--Homo (includes erectus, habilis, neanderthalensis, sapiens . .) Species--sapiens Subspecies--sapiens Key concepts: The history of human evolution including locations and ages of some of the fossils and associated tools. What’s due D2L Workshop 4 10 points As always, be prepared! Write-down the answer to the questions starting on p 2 before opening workshop 4 on D2L. In addition to using the individual links for each question, you can go to GEOS170C Workshop 4. Either way, don’t forget your username and password for GEOS170C 1 Worksheet Answer each question below (copy & paste the worksheet into your word-processor). The associated links provide the needed information, but also consult the readings and the lecture notes. Then, attempt D2L Workshop 4 and transfer the information from the worksheet into the workshop. 1. Phylogenetic relationships (2 points) phylog.html a. What are the 5 traits of the "hominids?" b. Are modern humans hominids? ______ Are chimpanzees hominids? ______ Are monkeys hominids? ______ c. How long have hominids existed? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Development of the Strepsirrhine Primate Skull Renaud Lebrun
    Evolution and Development of the Strepsirrhine Primate Skull Renaud Lebrun To cite this version: Renaud Lebrun. Evolution and Development of the Strepsirrhine Primate Skull. Paleontology. Uni- versité de Montpellier 2; Universität Zürich - Switzerland, 2008. English. tel-01874272 HAL Id: tel-01874272 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01874272 Submitted on 14 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. EVOLUTION AND DE V E LOPM E NT OF TH E STR E P S IRRHIN E PRIMAT E SKULL Dissertation zur Erlangung der naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorwürde (Dr. sc. nat.) vorgelegt der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Zürich Doppeldoktorat Universität Zürich - l’Université Montpellier II Von Renaud Lebrun aus Frankreich Promotionskomitee Dr. Franck Guy Prof. Dr. Jean-Jacques Jaeger (Leitung der Dissertation) Dr. Marcia Ponce de León Prof. Dr. Christoph Zollikofer (Leitung der Dissertation) Zürich, 2008 T H E S E pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITE MONTPELLIER II Discipline : Paléontologie Ecole Doctorale : S.I.B.A.G.H.E - Thèse de doctorat double entre l’UNIVERSITE MONTPELLIER II et l’UNIVERSITE de ZÜRICH présentée et soutenue publiquement par Renaud Lebrun Le 04 avril 2008 Titre : EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STREPSIRRHINE PRIMATE SKULL Rapporteurs Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Gorilla-Like Anatomy on Australopithecus Afarensis Mandibles Suggests Au
    Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths Yoel Rak*†, Avishag Ginzburg*, and Eli Geffen‡ *Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and ‡Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006) Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen recovered from the lower Kada Hadar member and is Ϸ3.1 of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This million years old. Its calvarial, facial, mandibular, and dental finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest morphologies demonstrate that the specimen belongs to Au. living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, afarensis.¶ orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology To quantify the contour of the essentially two-dimensional that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must repre- structure that lies between the posterior ramal margin and the sent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must parallel, anterior ramal margin, we plotted each ramus in our represent an independently derived morphology. This particular fossil and extant primate samples on a fixed, specifically morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The pres- constructed system of coordinates. In this procedure, the ence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its contour of each ramus is expressed as 20 numeric values absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis referenced to the coordinate system [supporting information as a modern human ancestor.
    [Show full text]