DOCSLIB.ORG

ANTH 42: Primates in Nature Rules to a Story •What? •When? •Where

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ANTH 42: Primates in Nature Rules to a Story •What? •When? •Where Rules to a story! … but today, not in that order:! •!What?! When? Dating methods and deep time! •!When?! Where? How do fossils form - ANTH 42: Primates in Nature! taphonomy! •!Where?! What? The primate fossil record! Lecture 2:! •!Why?! Why? Evolution and its Primate evolution! mechanisms (including natural selection) [later lecture!]! http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/anth42web/! WHEN: Dating Bishop James Ussher: 1650 WHEN: Dating methods! Uniformitarianism methods! calculated from Bible that & the earth! Creation occurred 4004 BC! Strata laid down in layers, oldest are deepest.! Mary Ann Mantell: 1820 discovered “Iguanodon” tooth (Sussex, UK)*! Younger or older?! Richard Owen: 1842 coined Sometimes, word “Dinosaur”! geological 1854: Dinner in the Iguanodon! processes can Was hard to reconcile 6,000 years with creatures SO muddle that up.! different and so clearly extinct.! Uniformitarianism violated.! * Other giant bones known, but this specimen first to kick off ‘modern’ interest! But with more data, can usually figure it out.! WHEN: Dating methods! WHEN: Dating methods! 1566! " 100 years trying to date fossils. Absolute. ! Recognized fossil ‘stages’ - rocks with Dendrochronology! no crinoids or coral overlaid by rocks (tree rings)! Growth depends on with crinoids and coral, but no rainfall; annual rings.! dinosaurs, so could talk about “age of Count inward from crinoids” and “age of dinosaurs”. outermost ring, get age of tree.! Knew the order taxa showed up Bristlecone pine 5,000 yrs! (relative dating), but argue about when in years (absolute dating).! Buried log! WHEN: Dating methods! 1566! WHEN: Dating methods! Absolute. Dendrochronology! Absolute. ! River oaks, S. Radiometric! Dendrochronology! Germany: > (tree rings)! 10,000 yrs! Isotopic decay - Growth depends on measurable rainfall; annual rings.! Bristlecone rates! Pines, SW Count inward from USA: 8,500! outermost ring, get age of tree.! Bristlecone pine 5,000 yrs! Buried log! Buried log! WHEN: Dating methods! • total amount of WHEN: Dating methods! Absolute. Dendrochronology! carbon! Absolute. Dendrochronology! Radiometric! • amount of 14C! Radiometric! Isotopic decay - Isotopic decay - 14 12 • C/ C at death Uranium - Lead (U/Pb)! measurable measurable (atmospheric)! rates! 235U -> 207Pb: 700my! rates! 238 206 ! 14 U -> Pb: 4,500my! N! ! 14C! Potassium - Argon (K/Ar)! 40 40 K -> Ar: 1,300my! PRODUCT Y Unstable isotope Radioactive decay of DECA Radioactive decay of unstable isotopes - half-life! T ! T ! T ! T ! T ! unstable isotopes - half-life! Death! 5,730! 11,460! 17,190! 22,920! 28,650! T0! 1 2 3 4 5 TIME! TIME! WHEN: Dating methods! Absolute. Dendrochronology! Radiometric! NOW:! 4.4 billion years ago! 500 million years ago “DEEP TIME”! (mya)! Uranium - Lead (U/Pb)! ! 235U -> 207Pb: 700my! Y 238U -> 206Pb: 4,500my! ! Potassium - Argon (K/Ar)! DECA PRODUCT 40 40 K -> Ar: 1,300my! Unstable isotope Radioactive decay of unstable isotopes - half-life! T0! T1! T T T T 2! 3! 4! 5! 500 million 500 million years ago years ago (mya)! (mya)! 500 million 500 million years ago years ago (mya)! (mya)! And now to shift scales... ! 500 million years ago (mya)! And now to shift scales... [fish, after all...]! 500 million years ago (mya)! 65mya! WHERE: Taphonomy! “Deep time”! WHERE: Taphonomy! Taphonomy: the study of burial and decay; creation of fossils.! Chewed up, pulled apart! ! Trampled, dispersed! TION Weathered! Gain of information (?): 65mya! Chimp- Plant roots! human LCA What happened " 6mya! INFORMA Buried! to this horse?! Geological deformation! “Deep time”! LOSS OF Exposed (partially?)! WHERE: Taphonomy - one consequence! WHERE: Taphonomy - one consequence! Living species Same color = Living species Same color = closely related.! closely related.! •! Because VAST MAJORITY of individual organisms that have ever lived do NOT ! become fossils (let alone recognizable ones), ! ! TION •! And of the ones that do, only a TINY TION MINORITY then become exposed and available for study,! Count species in modern habitat, •! We expect gaps in the fossil record….! INFORMA INFORMA compare with fossil species in similar “fossil habitat”, Fossils! LOSS OF LOSS OF estimate # missing species. Guess?! " 90%! (Uniformitariansim)! WHERE: Taphonomy - one consequence! WHERE: Taphonomy - one consequence! ! ! TION TION •! Cheating to connect branches with species we haven’t found, even if •! Cheating to connect branches with species we we know they must have existed. ! INFORMA haven’t found, even if know they must have existed. ! INFORMA •! So connect up available species.! •! So connect up available species.! •! Make mistakes.!•! Find new fossil, revise understanding (and get closer to reality)! LOSS OF •! Make mistakes.! LOSS OF WHERE: Taphonomy - another consequence! WHERE: Taphonomy - another consequence! Jaws and “Lucy”! Aegyptopithecus especially (jaw and skull teeth are found ! HARD! ! separately)! TION TION Dinosaur National Monument INFORMA What PARTS get left?! INFORMA (UT)! Faces aren’t easy to chew and don’t have much meat (medium-size animals).! How do we put them together?? ! LOSS OF LOSS OF WHAT: The record.! Origin of mammals,Origin & recognition ofprimates mammals! ! •! What does a mammal look like Synapsids! when it’s a bone?! ~1m! Mammae don’t Bony definition of fossilize! mammal! Reptile --> mammal! •! What’s the difference between Primates! Jurassic! a primate and a possum?! Fish! Reptiles! Dinosaurs! 500 million years - 1st fish to present! Primates v. other mammals! Primates v. other Maybe primate (tree shrew)! Postorbital bar --> bony orbit! mammals! “Postorbital bar is usually complete”! But it’s not real obvious, hence disagree over Tupaia! Postorbital bar! Not primate (elephant shrew)! Primate phylogeny (Falk)! Plesiadapiforms (‘proto-primates’)! Adapiforms (prosimians)! Omomyiforms (tarsiers [?])! Late Oligocene (early simians)! Early Miocene (apes)! Prosimian vs. anthropoid skulls! Madagascar (lemur megafauna)! 80 - 90mya! 130 mya, Conceivable 120 mya Early Cretaceous ! South 85mya Late Cretaceous! ancestors of America, primates Africa, around, but India all continents connected! separate.! Dinosaurs still No dominant.! “primates”! Madagascar off on own.! 115 mya, End Cretaceous drifting - K/T boundary apart.! 65 mya - ‘primates’!! Plesiadapiforms! Plesiadapiforms! Weird jaw + Eyes lateral! Purgatorius! grasping ~ rat size; ~ 65mya paws…! Purgatory, Montana. “primatomorph”! Nail, not claw! Prosimians - or “flying lemurs”? ! Plesiadapis: ~2 ´ (beaver-sized); North Dakota! O! Definitely primate O! A! O! A! A! Eocene! 45mya Eocene Adapids, Omomyids! …! Adapids! Adapiforms! A! Omomyids! Adapis (France)! Notharctus! Wyoming ~ 40-50mya! Adapis! Shoshonius! Omomyids! Lots of specimens and # species! Note forward facing eyes, postorbital bar!.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JVP 26(3) September 2006—ABSTRACTS
    Neoceti Symposium, Saturday 8:45 acid-prepared osteolepiforms Medoevia and Gogonasus has offered strong support for BODY SIZE AND CRYPTIC TROPHIC SEPARATION OF GENERALIZED Jarvik’s interpretation, but Eusthenopteron itself has not been reexamined in detail. PIERCE-FEEDING CETACEANS: THE ROLE OF FEEDING DIVERSITY DUR- Uncertainty has persisted about the relationship between the large endoskeletal “fenestra ING THE RISE OF THE NEOCETI endochoanalis” and the apparently much smaller choana, and about the occlusion of upper ADAM, Peter, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; JETT, Kristin, Univ. of and lower jaw fangs relative to the choana. California, Davis, Davis, CA; OLSON, Joshua, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Los A CT scan investigation of a large skull of Eusthenopteron, carried out in collaboration Angeles, CA with University of Texas and Parc de Miguasha, offers an opportunity to image and digital- Marine mammals with homodont dentition and relatively little specialization of the feeding ly “dissect” a complete three-dimensional snout region. We find that a choana is indeed apparatus are often categorized as generalist eaters of squid and fish. However, analyses of present, somewhat narrower but otherwise similar to that described by Jarvik. It does not many modern ecosystems reveal the importance of body size in determining trophic parti- receive the anterior coronoid fang, which bites mesial to the edge of the dermopalatine and tioning and diversity among predators. We established relationships between body sizes of is received by a pit in that bone. The fenestra endochoanalis is partly floored by the vomer extant cetaceans and their prey in order to infer prey size and potential trophic separation of and the dermopalatine, restricting the choana to the lateral part of the fenestra.
    [Show full text]
  • The World at the Time of Messel: Conference Volume
    T. Lehmann & S.F.K. Schaal (eds) The World at the Time of Messel - Conference Volume Time at the The World The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment and the History of Early Primates 22nd International Senckenberg Conference 2011 Frankfurt am Main, 15th - 19th November 2011 ISBN 978-3-929907-86-5 Conference Volume SENCKENBERG Gesellschaft für Naturforschung THOMAS LEHMANN & STEPHAN F.K. SCHAAL (eds) The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment, and the History of Early Primates 22nd International Senckenberg Conference Frankfurt am Main, 15th – 19th November 2011 Conference Volume Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung IMPRINT The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment, and the History of Early Primates 22nd International Senckenberg Conference 15th – 19th November 2011, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Conference Volume Publisher PROF. DR. DR. H.C. VOLKER MOSBRUGGER Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Editors DR. THOMAS LEHMANN & DR. STEPHAN F.K. SCHAAL Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected]; [email protected] Language editors JOSEPH E.B. HOGAN & DR. KRISTER T. SMITH Layout JULIANE EBERHARDT & ANIKA VOGEL Cover Illustration EVELINE JUNQUEIRA Print Rhein-Main-Geschäftsdrucke, Hofheim-Wallau, Germany Citation LEHMANN, T. & SCHAAL, S.F.K. (eds) (2011). The World at the Time of Messel: Puzzles in Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironment, and the History of Early Primates. 22nd International Senckenberg Conference. 15th – 19th November 2011, Frankfurt am Main. Conference Volume. Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt am Main. pp. 203.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the United States National Museum
    LIS T OF ILL US TRA TIONS. IX Pa«e. Apices of ovipositors : o, Polysphincta texaiui Cresson ; &, Eymenoepi- meois iciltii (Cresson); Mandible; c, H. tmltii (Cresson) 389 Apex of ovipositor of Theronia fulvesceiis Cresson 389 Apices of ovipositors: a, Itoplectis canqMisitor Say; b, Apechthis pictir cornis (Cresson) 389 Apex of abdomen of female of Coleocentrus occidentalis 390 Areolet of Lahena grallatoi- (Say) 390 Areolets: a, Tromatohia rufovariata (Cresson) ; b, Itoplectis conquisitor (Say) ; c, Epiurus alboricta (Cresson) 390 Sessile first tergite of Perithous pleuralis (Cresson) 390 Petioatel first tergite of Xorides yukonensis (Rohwer) 390 Mandible of Poemenva americana (Cresson) 391 Female of Labena confusa Rohwer 412 Female of Rhyssella nitida (Cresson) 424 Propodeum of Zonde* picea*u« (Rohwer) 434 Front view of head of Xoi'ides albopictus (Cresson) 437 Propodeum and basal abdominal segments of Xorides albopictus (Cresson) 437 Apical abdomen segments of Xorides albopictus (Cresson) 437 Female of Xorides rileyi (Ashmead) 440 Front view of head of Deuteroxorides caryae (Harrington) 446 Propodeum and basal abdominal segments of Deuteroxorides caryae (Harrington) 446 Apical abdominal segments of Z)c«feroa:ori<Ze« caryae (Harrington) 446 Female of Deuteroxorides caryae (Harrington) 447 Female of Odontomerus canadensis Provancher 459 Female of Phytodietus annulatus (Provancher) 467 Femaie of Phydotietus annulatus (Provancher) 467 Diagram showing relation of dike to vein, Hecla Mine. A, Dike; B, Crushed material with quartz and ore; C, Galena; D, Quartzite wall rock ; width of section 15 feet 481 Showing relation to dikes (A) to vein (B) on No. 1 level of Marsh Mine_ 484 Showing relation of dike (A) to vein (B) on 2,000-foot level of Standard- Mammoth Mine 492 Showing relation of dike (A) to vein (B) on 1,200-foot level of Standard- Mammoth Mine 492 Coleocentrus occidentalis.
    [Show full text]
  • New Fossil Discovery Illuminates the Lives of the Earliest Primates 24 February 2021
    New fossil discovery illuminates the lives of the earliest primates 24 February 2021 Royal Society Open Science. "This discovery is exciting because it represents the oldest dated occurrence of archaic primates in the fossil record," Chester said. "It adds to our understanding of how the earliest primates separated themselves from their competitors following the demise of the dinosaurs." Chester and Gregory Wilson Mantilla, Burke Museum Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology and University of Washington biology professor, were co-leads on this study, where the team analyzed fossilized teeth found in the Hell Creek area of northeastern Montana. The fossils, now part of the collections at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, are estimated to be 65.9 Shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the earliest million years old, about 105,000 to 139,000 years known archaic primates, such as the newly described after the mass extinction event. species Purgatorius mckeeveri shown in the foreground, quickly set themselves apart from their competition -- like Based on the age of the fossils, the team estimates the archaic ungulate mammal on the forest floor -- by that the ancestor of all primates (the group specializing in an omnivorous diet including fruit found including plesiadapiforms and today's primates up in the trees. Credit: Andrey Atuchin such as lemurs, monkeys, and apes) likely emerged by the Late Cretaceous—and lived alongside large dinosaurs. Stephen Chester, an assistant professor of anthropology and paleontologist at the Graduate Center, CUNY and Brooklyn College, was part of a team of 10 researchers from across the United States who analyzed several fossils of Purgatorius, the oldest genus in a group of the earliest-known primates called plesiadapiforms.
    [Show full text]
  • ZOOLOGY Exploring the Biodiversity of Colorado and Theworld
    CHAPTER 4 — ZOOLOGY Exploring the Biodiversity of Colorado and the World CHAPTER 4 ZOOLOGY Exploring the Biodiversity of Colorado and the World Jeffrey T. Stephenson, Before the Museum Paula E. Cushing, The first collections of specimens that make up what is now the Denver John R. Demboski, and Museum of Nature & Science were actually established well before the Frank-T. Krell founding of the institution in 1900, the selection of a board of trustees, or the construction of a building to house and exhibit the specimens. Edwin Carter (1830–1900) (Fig. 4.1) collected Colorado birds and mammals from the 1860s through the 1890s. Born in New York in 1830, Carter arrived in Colorado in 1859 hoping to make it rich in the goldfields, but he soon became interested in the region’s natural history. He learned hide tanning and, as his prospects for hitting the mother lode faded, he earned his living selling buckskin clothing that he handcrafted. Carter supplemented these earnings by mar- keting foodstuffs and other provisions to the growing population of successful and (mostly) unsuccessful prospectors flooding the region. His interest in nature turned to concern as he observed dwindling numbers of mammals and birds, owing largely to habitat destruction and overhunting. Period photographs of the area’s mining district show a landscape largely denuded of vegetation. By the 1870s, Carter noted that many animal species were becoming scarce. The state’s forests were being devastated, ranches and farms were replacing open prairie, and some species, including the last native bison in Colorado, were on the verge of extirpation or extinction.
    [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]
  • Resolving the Relationships of Paleocene Placental Mammals
    Biol. Rev. (2015), pp. 000–000. 1 doi: 10.1111/brv.12242 Resolving the relationships of Paleocene placental mammals Thomas J. D. Halliday1,2,∗, Paul Upchurch1 and Anjali Goswami1,2 1Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, U.K. 2Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, U.K. ABSTRACT The ‘Age of Mammals’ began in the Paleocene epoch, the 10 million year interval immediately following the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction. The apparently rapid shift in mammalian ecomorphs from small, largely insectivorous forms to many small-to-large-bodied, diverse taxa has driven a hypothesis that the end-Cretaceous heralded an adaptive radiation in placental mammal evolution. However, the affinities of most Paleocene mammals have remained unresolved, despite significant advances in understanding the relationships of the extant orders, hindering efforts to reconstruct robustly the origin and early evolution of placental mammals. Here we present the largest cladistic analysis of Paleocene placentals to date, from a data matrix including 177 taxa (130 of which are Palaeogene) and 680 morphological characters. We improve the resolution of the relationships of several enigmatic Paleocene clades, including families of ‘condylarths’. Protungulatum is resolved as a stem eutherian, meaning that no crown-placental mammal unambiguously pre-dates the Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary. Our results support an Atlantogenata–Boreoeutheria split at the root of crown Placentalia, the presence of phenacodontids as closest relatives of Perissodactyla, the validity of Euungulata, and the placement of Arctocyonidae close to Carnivora. Periptychidae and Pantodonta are resolved as sister taxa, Leptictida and Cimolestidae are found to be stem eutherians, and Hyopsodontidae is highly polyphyletic.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Extract
    WHAT S A HUMAN? Mammals ’ Humans are mammals. Humans are unique. We grow crops, breed domestic animals and trade across Like all mammals, humans continents. We talk and write with complex languages. We have the ability to reason, have hair and human and we explore and try to understand the workings of the world. Art, music and babies drink their mother’s literature celebrate what we see and hear. Complex tools enable us to construct milk. It contains all the goodness that a growing buildings and create complicated machines, and we can even explore outer space. human baby needs. No other animal achieves all these things, but, like all animals, our evolutionary story has much simpler beginnings. In this book we explore the journey our ancestors took and the changes we went through to become humans. Primates Humans are primates. This is a subgroup of mammals that includes lemurs and lorises on the one hand and tarsiers, monkeys and apes (including humans) on the other. Haplorhines So wher s fit in? e exactly do human Humans are haplorhines, meaning ‘simple noses’, a group which includes monkeys and apes. One difference between monkeys Hominids and apes is very obvious: most Humans are also included with the monkeys have tails but apes hominids, or great apes. This is a do not, which, if you look in the Hominins subgroup of the apes that includes mirror, makes us an ape. And, just when you orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, thought scientists had bonobos and us, but not the gibbons. invented enough words to describe humans, there’s another one.
    [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]
  • Early Eocene Primates from Gujarat, India
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2009) 1–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Early Eocene Primates from Gujarat, India Kenneth D. Rose a,*, Rajendra S. Rana b, Ashok Sahni c, Kishor Kumar d, Pieter Missiaen e, Lachham Singh b, Thierry Smith f a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA b H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar 246175, Uttarakhand, India c Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India d Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun 248001, Uttarakhand, India e University of Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium f Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium article info abstract Article history: The oldest euprimates known from India come from the Early Eocene Cambay Formation at Vastan Mine Received 24 June 2008 in Gujarat. An Ypresian (early Cuisian) age of w53 Ma (based on foraminifera) indicates that these Accepted 8 January 2009 primates were roughly contemporary with, or perhaps predated, the India-Asia collision. Here we present new euprimate fossils from Vastan Mine, including teeth, jaws, and referred postcrania of the Keywords: adapoids Marcgodinotius indicus and Asiadapis cambayensis. They are placed in the new subfamily Eocene Asiadapinae (family Notharctidae), which is most similar to primitive European Cercamoniinae such as India Donrussellia and Protoadapis. Asiadapines were small primates in the size range of extant smaller Notharctidae Adapoidea bushbabies. Despite their generally very plesiomorphic morphology, asiadapines also share a few derived Omomyidae dental traits with sivaladapids, suggesting a possible relationship to these endemic Asian adapoids. In Eosimiidae addition to the adapoids, a new species of the omomyid Vastanomys is described.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleontological Contributions
    Paleontological Contributions Number 14 The first giant raptor (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Hell Creek Formation Robert A. DePalma, David A. Burnham, Larry D. Martin, Peter L. Larson, and Robert T. Bakker October 30, 2015 Lawrence, Kansas, USA ISSN 1946-0279 (online) paleo.ku.edu/contributions Life restoration by Emily Willoughby of Dakotaraptor steini running with the sparrow-sized birds, Cimolopteryx petra while the mammal, Purgatorius, can be seen in the foreground. Paleontological Contributions October 30, 2015 Number 14 THE FIRST GIANT RAPTOR (THEROPODA: DROMAEOSAURIDAE) FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION Robert A. DePalma1,2, David A. Burnham2,*, Larry D. Martin2,†, Peter L. Larson3 and Robert T. Bakker4 1 Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, The Palm Beach Museum of Natural History, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; 2 University of Kansas Bio- diversity Institute, Lawrence, Kansas; 3Black Hills Institute of Geological Research, Hill City, South Dakota; 4Houston Museum of Nature and Science, Houston, Texas; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Most dromaeosaurids were small- to medium-sized cursorial, scansorial, and arboreal, sometimes volant predators, but a comparatively small percentage grew to gigantic proportions. Only two such giant “raptors” have been described from North America. Here, we describe a new giant dromaeosaurid, Dakotaraptor steini gen. et sp. nov., from the Hell Creek Formation of South Dakota. The discovery represents the first giant dromaeosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, and the most recent in the fossil record worldwide. A row of prominent ulnar papilli or “quill knobs” on the ulna is our first clear evidence for feather quills on a large dromaeosaurid forearm and impacts evolutionary reconstructions and functional morphology of such derived, typically flight-related features.
    [Show full text]
  • Oldest Known Euarchontan Tarsals and Affinities of Paleocene Purgatorius to Primates
    Oldest known euarchontan tarsals and affinities of Paleocene Purgatorius to Primates Stephen G. B. Chestera,b,c,1, Jonathan I. Blochd, Doug M. Boyere, and William A. Clemensf aDepartment of Anthropology and Archaeology, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210; bNew York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, New York, NY 10024; cDepartment of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; dFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; eDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; and fUniversity of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, CA 94720 Edited by Neil H. Shubin, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, and approved December 24, 2014 (received for review November 12, 2014) Earliest Paleocene Purgatorius often is regarded as the geologi- directly outside Placentalia with the contemporary condylarths cally oldest primate, but it has been known only from fossilized (archaic ungulates) Protungulatum and Oxyprimus (10–12). How- dentitions since it was first described half a century ago. The den- ever, the addition of new tarsal data for Purgatorius and increased tition of Purgatorius is more primitive than those of all known taxon sampling, including a colugo and four plesiadapiforms, using living and fossil primates, leading some researchers to suggest this same matrix, results in a strict consensus tree that supports that it lies near the ancestry of all other primates; however, others a monophyletic Euarchonta with Sundatheria (treeshrews and have questioned its affinities to primates or even to placental colugos) as the sister group to a fairly unresolved Primates clade mammals. Here we report the first (to our knowledge) nondental that includes Purgatorius (Fig.
    [Show full text]