DOCSLIB.ORG

Supporting Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supporting Information Supporting Information Moya` -Sola` et al. 10.1073/pnas.0811730106 SI Text netic relationships between all these taxa by classifying them all Systematic Framework. In Table S1 we provide a systematic into a single family Afropithecidae with 2 subfamilies (Keny- classification of living and fossil Hominoidea to the tribe level, apithecinae and Afropithecinae). by further including extant taxa and extinct genera discussed in The systematic scheme used here requires several nomencla- this paper. Hominoidea are defined as the group constituted by tural decisions, which deserve further explanation. The nomina Hylobatidae and Hominidae, plus all extinct taxa more closely Kenyapithecini and Kenyapithecinae are adopted instead of related to them than to Cercopithecoidea. Hominidae, in turn, Griphopithecinae and Griphopithecini (see also ref. 25) merely are defined as the group containing Ponginae and Homininae, because the former have priority. It is unclear why neither Begun plus all extinct forms more closely related to them than to (1) nor Kelley (2) specify the authorship of Griphopithecinae (or Hylobatidae. While this broad concept of Hominidae is currently Griphopithecidae), but, to our knowledge, the authorship of the used by many paleoprimatologists (e.g., refs. 1–2), the systematic latter nomina must be attributed to Begun (ref. 4, p. 232: Table position of primitive (or archaic) putative hominoids is far from 10.1), which therefore do not have priority over Kenyapithecinae clear (see below). Begun (3–5) employs the terms ‘‘Eohomi- Andrews, 1992. Griphopithecinae thus remains potentially valid noidea’’ and ‘‘Euhominoidea’’ to informally refer to hominoids only if Kenyapithecus (and Afropithecus, see below) are excluded of primitive and modern aspect, respectively. These terms, from it. This notwithstanding, there has been some confusion however, are roughly equivalent to stem-lineage and crown- regarding the authorship of the nomen Kenyapithecinae. Both group hominoids, respectively, and are not further used here. Begun (1) and Ward and Duren (20) attribute its authorship to The systematic status of many Late Oligocene and Early- Leakey (26). However, the earliest usage of a suprageneric Middle Miocene fossil catarrhines, lacking both cercopithecoid nomen with Kenyapithecus as the type genus is attributable to synapomorphies and crown hominoid synapomorphies, has been Andrews (6), who erected it as a previously undescribed tribe, subject to different interpretations (6–8). Harrison (8) argues Kenyapithecini, in the same paper that he erected Afropithecini that most fossil ‘‘apes’’ from the Late Oligocene and Early (27). To our knowledge, Kenyapithecus and Afropithecus have not Miocene of Africa have not crossed the hominoid ‘‘cladistic been previously included into a single family with the exclusion threshold’’ and classifies them into 2 distinct superfamilies of Hominidae (as in ref. 20), but we have chosen the nomen (Dendropithecoidea and Proconsuloidea), which he considers to Afropithecidae (instead of Kenyapithecidae) because the former be successive sister taxa of stem catarrhines, more derived than has been already used at the family level—albeit with a different propliopithecoids and pliopithecoids, but presumably preceding meaning—by some previous workers (2, 5). If, as suggested in the cercopithecoid–hominoid split (8–12). On the other ex- this paper, there is a close phylogenetic relationship between treme, a few authors have considered that proconsuloids might Kenyapithecinae (in particular, the Kenyapithecini) and Hom- be stem hominids (13–15). Although the latter view is apparently inidae, Afropithecidae as conceived here would be paraphyletic. abandoned (16), most authors consider that Early Miocene Transferring the Kenyapithecinae into the Hominidae (25), forms, especially Proconsul, are more closely related to extant however, would not solve this problem, since the remaining hominoids than to cercopithecoids (3, 6–7, 16–20). The system- Afropithecidae (including only the Afropithecinae) would re- atic scheme used here (Table S1) follows Harrison (8) in main paraphyletic in excluding the Kenyapithecinae. Paraphyly recognizing that proconsulids and dendropithecids are distinct can be transferred from one group or rank to another, but cannot clades, but considers that at least the former are stem hominoids. be completely eliminated unless Linnean ranks are aban- These putative stem hominoids lack crown hominoid synapo- doned—a view that is not advocated here. morphies, in particular, features functionally related to ortho- The Late Miocene genera Hispanopithecus and Ouranopithe- grady that are presumably homologous between hylobatids and cus are not classified here at the tribe level. Both genera have hominids. Yet stem hominoids already share with both hylo- been previously suggested to be either pongines (28) or homi- batids and hominids some facial (16) and several postcranial nines (4), but this issue is not definitively resolved and lies (17–18, 21) synapomorphies. Prominently, the lack of external outside the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it is worth men- tail in Proconsul (17, 19, 21), albeit disputed by some authors tioning that Hispanopithecus was recently resurrected (29) for (22), is now firmly established (23) and has been further ascer- Late Miocene species previously included in Dryopithecus,so tained in the putative stem hominoid Nacholapithecus (24). that the latter genus is restricted to its type species, Dryopithecus Among putative stem hominoids, the position of Afropithecus fontani. As a result, the tribe Dryopithecini is here used with a and other related taxa is the most problematic. Harrison (8) different meaning from previous usages, to refer to Middle distinguishes a single family Proconsulidae with 3 distinct sub- Miocene stem hominids that apparently do not belong to any of families (Proconsulinae, Nyanzapithecinae, and Afropitheci- the 2 crown-hominid subfamilies; this tribe includes Pierolapithe- nae), while other authors (20) take an opposite approach by cus, Dryopithecus s.s., and Anoiapithecus gen. nov., but most classifying their Afropithecinae (including Nacholapithecus and likely excludes Hispanopithecus. Given the uncertain phyloge- Equatorius) within the Hominidae, and others (2) consider the netic relationships between the several dryopithecin genera, it is former to be a distinct family. Especially problematic is the currently unclear whether this tribe is paraphyletic or represents placement of Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus: in some sys- a clade of stem European hominids. tematic schemes (20, 25), the latter taxa are classified into the subfamily Kenyapithecinae within the Hominidae; others (2) Results distinguish a subfamily Griphopithecinae (for Griphopithecus) Morphometric Analyses. ANOVA comparisons show that there within the Afropithecidae; and Begun reunites both Keny- are significant differences (P Ͻ 0.001; F ϭ 178.6) among several apithecinae and Griphopithecinae into a distinct family Gripho- extant catarrhines regarding the CFA (Table S2 and S3), with pithecidae (2) or combines these taxa into an informal grouping gorillas, colobines, and hylobatids displaying the highest values, (‘‘griphopiths’’) of stem hominoids (5). The systematic scheme which nevertheless generally do not surpass 60°. Living humans, followed in this paper (Table S1) recognizes the close phyloge- on the contrary, differ from all of the remaining taxa (P Ͻ 0.001) Moya` -Sola` et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0811730106 1of10 by the much higher CFA of the former, while extinct hominins ape to have ever displayed a colobine-like facial profile, to which display intermediate values. Most extinct catarrhines clearly fall it may have autapomorphically converged from an ancestral within the ranges of extant nonhuman cercopithecoids and condition more similar to that displayed by stem hominoids and hominoids, with the exception of Anoiapithecus. The latter taxa living cercopithecines. display values of CFA beyond the maximum value recorded in Squared distances based on the CVA discriminant scores, and extant nonhuman catarrhines, and Ϸ20° higher than other fossil computed for pairs of fossil individuals included (Table S5), apes, most closely resembling the values displayed by extinct indicate that Anoiapithecus is particularly far from the 2 other members of the genus Homo. Miocene hominoids from Spain included in the analysis (Piero- The canonical variate analysis (CVA) indicates that Anoia- lapithecus and Hispanopithecus); D. fontani could not be included pithecus displays a unique morphology, previously unknown in the analysis because of incomplete preservation, although a among living and fossil hominoids, which confirms the need to previous analysis of facial morphology based on new remains erect a previously undescribed genus. This analysis (Table S4 and from Abocador de Can Mata indicates a gorilla-like morphology Table S5) correctly classifies 93% of the original cases, only with (29), which is thus quite different from the Anoiapithecus minor confusion between some chimpanzees and gorillas and condition. The results of the randomization approach further between very few colobines, cercopithecines, and hylobatids. confirm that differences between Anoiapithecus and other fossil Stem catarrhines, stem hominoids, and even the stem great ape individuals cannot be accommodated within the range of vari- Pierolapithecus most closely resemble cercopithecines, whereas ation of a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Taxonomy of Primates in the Laboratory Context
    P0800261_01 7/14/05 8:00 AM Page 3 C HAPTER 1 The Taxonomy of Primates T HE T in the Laboratory Context AXONOMY OF P Colin Groves RIMATES School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia 3 What are species? D Taxonomy: EFINITION OF THE The biological Organizing nature species concept Taxonomy means classifying organisms. It is nowadays commonly used as a synonym for systematics, though Disagreement as to what precisely constitutes a species P strictly speaking systematics is a much broader sphere is to be expected, given that the concept serves so many RIMATE of interest – interrelationships, and biodiversity. At the functions (Vane-Wright, 1992). We may be interested basis of taxonomy lies that much-debated concept, the in classification as such, or in the evolutionary implica- species. tions of species; in the theory of species, or in simply M ODEL Because there is so much misunderstanding about how to recognize them; or in their reproductive, phys- what a species is, it is necessary to give some space to iological, or husbandry status. discussion of the concept. The importance of what we Most non-specialists probably have some vague mean by the word “species” goes way beyond taxonomy idea that species are defined by not interbreeding with as such: it affects such diverse fields as genetics, biogeog- each other; usually, that hybrids between different species raphy, population biology, ecology, ethology, and bio- are sterile, or that they are incapable of hybridizing at diversity; in an era in which threats to the natural all. Such an impression ultimately derives from the def- world and its biodiversity are accelerating, it affects inition by Mayr (1940), whereby species are “groups of conservation strategies (Rojas, 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Early Anthropoid Femora Reveal Divergent Adaptive Trajectories in Catarrhine Hind-Limb Evolution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12742-0 OPEN Early anthropoid femora reveal divergent adaptive trajectories in catarrhine hind-limb evolution Sergio Almécija 1,2,3*, Melissa Tallman 4, Hesham M. Sallam 5, John G. Fleagle 6, Ashley S. Hammond1,2 & Erik R. Seiffert 7 The divergence of crown catarrhines—i.e., the split of cercopithecoids (Old World monkeys) from hominoids (apes and humans)—is a poorly understood phase in our shared evolutionary 1234567890():,; history with other primates. The two groups differ in the anatomy of the hip joint, a pattern that has been linked to their locomotor strategies: relatively restricted motion in cerco- pithecoids vs. more eclectic movements in hominoids. Here we take advantage of the first well-preserved proximal femur of the early Oligocene stem catarrhine Aegyptopithecus to investigate the evolution of this anatomical region using 3D morphometric and phylogenetically-informed evolutionary analyses. Our analyses reveal that cercopithecoids and hominoids have undergone divergent evolutionary transformations of the proximal femur from a similar ancestral morphology that is not seen in any living anthropoid, but is preserved in Aegyptopithecus, stem platyrrhines, and stem cercopithecoids. These results highlight the relevance of fossil evidence for illuminating key adaptive shifts in primate evolution. 1 Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA. 2 New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, New York, NY, USA. 3 Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, c/ Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Download Full Article in PDF Format
    Dryopithecins, Darwin, de Bonis, and the European origin of the African apes and human clade David R. BEGUN University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology, 19 Russell Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S2 (Canada) [email protected] Begun R. D. 2009. — Dryopithecins, Darwin, de Bonis, and the European origin of the African apes and human clade. Geodiversitas 31 (4) : 789-816. ABSTRACT Darwin famously opined that the most likely place of origin of the common ancestor of African apes and humans is Africa, given the distribution of its liv- ing descendents. But it is infrequently recalled that immediately afterwards, Darwin, in his typically thorough and cautious style, noted that a fossil ape from Europe, Dryopithecus, may instead represent the ancestors of African apes, which dispersed into Africa from Europe. Louis de Bonis and his collaborators were the fi rst researchers in the modern era to echo Darwin’s suggestion about apes from Europe. Resulting from their spectacular discoveries in Greece over several decades, de Bonis and colleagues have shown convincingly that African KEY WORDS ape and human clade members (hominines) lived in Europe at least 9.5 million Mammalia, years ago. Here I review the fossil record of hominoids in Europe as it relates to Primates, Dryopithecus, the origins of the hominines. While I diff er in some details with Louis, we are Hispanopithecus, in complete agreement on the importance of Europe in determining the fate Rudapithecus, of the African ape and human clade. Th ere is no doubt that Louis de Bonis is Ouranopithecus, hominine origins, a pioneer in advancing our understanding of this fascinating time in our evo- new subtribe.
    [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]
  • The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research
    Taxonomic Tapestries The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research Taxonomic Tapestries The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research Edited by Alison M Behie and Marc F Oxenham Chapters written in honour of Professor Colin P Groves Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Taxonomic tapestries : the threads of evolutionary, behavioural and conservation research / Alison M Behie and Marc F Oxenham, editors. ISBN: 9781925022360 (paperback) 9781925022377 (ebook) Subjects: Biology--Classification. Biology--Philosophy. Human ecology--Research. Coexistence of species--Research. Evolution (Biology)--Research. Taxonomists. Other Creators/Contributors: Behie, Alison M., editor. Oxenham, Marc F., editor. Dewey Number: 578.012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press Cover photograph courtesy of Hajarimanitra Rambeloarivony Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2015 ANU Press Contents List of Contributors . .vii List of Figures and Tables . ix PART I 1. The Groves effect: 50 years of influence on behaviour, evolution and conservation research . 3 Alison M Behie and Marc F Oxenham PART II 2 . Characterisation of the endemic Sulawesi Lenomys meyeri (Muridae, Murinae) and the description of a new species of Lenomys . 13 Guy G Musser 3 . Gibbons and hominoid ancestry . 51 Peter Andrews and Richard J Johnson 4 .
    [Show full text]
  • Using Sub-Species Level Phylogenies
    1 Reconstructing the ancestral phenotypes of great apes and 2 humans (Homininae) using sub-species level phylogenies 3 Keaghan Yaxley1 and Robert Foley2 4 1Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, UK 5 2Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, UK 6 7 8 1 9 Abstract 10 By their close affinity, the African great apes are of interest to the study of human evolution. 11 While numerous researchers have described the ancestors we share with these species with 12 reference to extant great apes, few have done so with phylogenetic comparative methods. 13 One obstacle to the application of these techniques is the within-species phenotypic variation 14 found in this group. Here we leverage this variation, modelling common ancestors using 15 Ancestral State Reconstructions (ASRs) with reference to subspecies level trait data. A 16 subspecies level phylogeny of the African great apes and humans was estimated from full- 17 genome mtDNA sequences and used to implement ASRs for fifteen continuous traits known 18 to vary between great ape subspecies. While including within-species phenotypic variation 19 increased phylogenetic signal for our traits and improved the performance of our ASRs, 20 whether this was done through the inclusion of subspecies phylogeny or through the use of 21 existing methods made little difference. Our ASRs corroborate previous findings that the Last 22 Common Ancestor (LCA) of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos was a chimp-like animal, 23 but also suggest that the LCA of humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas was an animal 24 unlike any extant African great ape.
    [Show full text]
  • Unravelling the Positional Behaviour of Fossil Hominoids: Morphofunctional and Structural Analysis of the Primate Hindlimb
    ADVERTIMENT. Lʼaccés als continguts dʼaquesta tesi queda condicionat a lʼacceptació de les condicions dʼús establertes per la següent llicència Creative Commons: http://cat.creativecommons.org/?page_id=184 ADVERTENCIA. El acceso a los contenidos de esta tesis queda condicionado a la aceptación de las condiciones de uso establecidas por la siguiente licencia Creative Commons: http://es.creativecommons.org/blog/licencias/ WARNING. The access to the contents of this doctoral thesis it is limited to the acceptance of the use conditions set by the following Creative Commons license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/?lang=en Doctorado en Biodiversitat Facultad de Ciènces Tesis doctoral Unravelling the positional behaviour of fossil hominoids: Morphofunctional and structural analysis of the primate hindlimb Marta Pina Miguel 2016 Memoria presentada por Marta Pina Miguel para optar al grado de Doctor por la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, programa de doctorado en Biodiversitat del Departamento de Biologia Animal, de Biologia Vegetal i d’Ecologia (Facultad de Ciències). Este trabajo ha sido dirigido por el Dr. Salvador Moyà Solà (Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont) y el Dr. Sergio Almécija Martínez (The George Washington Univertisy). Director Co-director Dr. Salvador Moyà Solà Dr. Sergio Almécija Martínez A mis padres y hermana. Y a todas aquelas personas que un día decidieron perseguir un sueño Contents Acknowledgments [in Spanish] 13 Abstract 19 Resumen 21 Section I. Introduction 23 Hominoid positional behaviour The great apes of the Vallès-Penedès Basin: State-of-the-art Section II. Objectives 55 Section III. Material and Methods 59 Hindlimb fossil remains of the Vallès-Penedès hominoids Comparative sample Area of study: The Vallès-Penedès Basin Methodology: Generalities and principles Section IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Three-Dimensional Morphology of the Sigmoid Notch of The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kyoto University Research Information Repository Three-Dimensional Morphology of the Sigmoid Notch of the Title Ulna in Kenyapithecus and Proconsul NAKATSUKASA, Masato; SHIMIZU, Daisuke; NAKANO, Author(s) Yoshihiko; ISHIDA, Hidemi African study monographs. Supplementary issue (1996), 24: Citation 57-71 Issue Date 1996-12 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.14989/68383 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University African Study Monographs, Suppl. 24: 57-71, December 1996 57 THREE-DIMENSIONAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE SIGMOID NOTCH OF THE ULNA IN KENYAPITHECUS AND PROCONSUL Masato Nakatsukasa Daisuke Shimizu Laboratory of Physical Anthropology, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University Yoshihiko Nakano Department of Biological Anthropology, Faculty of Human Sciences, Osaka University Hidemi Ishida Laboratory of Physical Anthropology, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University ABSTRACT The three-dimensional (3-D) morphology of the sigmoid notch was examined in Kenyapithecus, Proconsul, and several living anthropoids by using an automatic 3-D digitizer. It was revealed that Kenyapithecus and Proconsul exhibit a very similar morphology of the dis­ tal region of the sigmoid notch; including the absence of a median keel and a downward sloped coronoid process. In addition, the proxilnal region of the sigmoid notch is curved more acutely relative to the distal region in Proconsul. This morphological complex is unique and not found in the examined living primates. The benefits of 3-D morphometries are discussed. Key Words: Kenyapithecus, Proconsul, sigmoid notch, three-dimensional morphometrics, ulna. INTRODUCTION Recently, automatic three-dimensional (3-0) digitizers have become more fre­ quently to be used for biometrics.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 - Introduction
    EURASIAN MIDDLE AND LATE MIOCENE HOMINOID PALEOBIOGEOGRAPHY AND THE GEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS OF THE HOMININAE by Mariam C. Nargolwalla A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Anthropology University of Toronto © Copyright by M. Nargolwalla (2009) Eurasian Middle and Late Miocene Hominoid Paleobiogeography and the Geographic Origins of the Homininae Mariam C. Nargolwalla Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto 2009 Abstract The origin and diversification of great apes and humans is among the most researched and debated series of events in the evolutionary history of the Primates. A fundamental part of understanding these events involves reconstructing paleoenvironmental and paleogeographic patterns in the Eurasian Miocene; a time period and geographic expanse rich in evidence of lineage origins and dispersals of numerous mammalian lineages, including apes. Traditionally, the geographic origin of the African ape and human lineage is considered to have occurred in Africa, however, an alternative hypothesis favouring a Eurasian origin has been proposed. This hypothesis suggests that that after an initial dispersal from Africa to Eurasia at ~17Ma and subsequent radiation from Spain to China, fossil apes disperse back to Africa at least once and found the African ape and human lineage in the late Miocene. The purpose of this study is to test the Eurasian origin hypothesis through the analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of distribution, in situ evolution, interprovincial and intercontinental dispersals of Eurasian terrestrial mammals in response to environmental factors. Using the NOW and Paleobiology databases, together with data collected through survey and excavation of middle and late Miocene vertebrate localities in Hungary and Romania, taphonomic bias and sampling completeness of Eurasian faunas are assessed.
    [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]
  • New Hominoid Mandible from the Early Late Miocene Irrawaddy Formation in Tebingan Area, Central Myanmar Masanaru Takai1*, Khin Nyo2, Reiko T
    Anthropological Science Advance Publication New hominoid mandible from the early Late Miocene Irrawaddy Formation in Tebingan area, central Myanmar Masanaru Takai1*, Khin Nyo2, Reiko T. Kono3, Thaung Htike4, Nao Kusuhashi5, Zin Maung Maung Thein6 1Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, 41 Kanrin, Inuyama, Aichi 484-8506, Japan 2Zaykabar Museum, No. 1, Mingaradon Garden City, Highway No. 3, Mingaradon Township, Yangon, Myanmar 3Keio University, 4-1-1 Hiyoshi, Kouhoku-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 223-8521, Japan 4University of Yangon, Hlaing Campus, Block (12), Hlaing Township, Yangon, Myanmar 5Ehime University, 2-5 Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, Ehime 790-8577, Japan 6University of Mandalay, Mandalay, Myanmar Received 14 August 2020; accepted 13 December 2020 Abstract A new medium-sized hominoid mandibular fossil was discovered at an early Late Miocene site, Tebingan area, south of Magway city, central Myanmar. The specimen is a left adult mandibular corpus preserving strongly worn M2 and M3, fragmentary roots of P4 and M1, alveoli of canine and P3, and the lower half of the mandibular symphysis. In Southeast Asia, two Late Miocene medium-sized hominoids have been discovered so far: Lufengpithecus from the Yunnan Province, southern China, and Khoratpithecus from northern Thailand and central Myanmar. In particular, the mandibular specimen of Khoratpithecus was discovered from the neighboring village of Tebingan. However, the new mandible shows apparent differences from both genera in the shape of the outline of the mandibular symphyseal section. The new Tebingan mandible has a well-developed superior transverse torus, a deep intertoral sulcus (= genioglossal fossa), and a thin, shelf-like inferior transverse torus. In contrast, Lufengpithecus and Khoratpithecus each have very shallow intertoral sulcus and a thick, rounded inferior transverse torus.
    [Show full text]