The Fossil Record
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
106 Evolutionary Anthropology BOOK REVIEWS This is a fairly unified book, with in- close relatives were not hominoids, but The Fossil Record— dexes to major authors and taxa, as rather derived early catarrhines, predat- well as a consolidated bibliography, in ing the hominoid-cercopithecoid diver- Human and addition to subdivided lists of “pri- gence because they lack synapomor- mary references” at the end of each phies with the modern apes. Nonhuman chapter. Following a brief survey of Afropithecines and nyanzapithecines primate origins, mainly a review of are included in the Proconsulidae as The Primate Fossil Record models with passing mention of Plesi- thus conceived; these taxa are well Edited by W.C. Hartwig (2002) Cam- adapiformes and other archontans, characterized, but only in the “evolu- bridge: Cambridge University Press. 530 there are five major sections on pros- tion” section of the chapter. Dendro- pp. $175 (cloth); ISBN 0-521-66315-6. imians, anthropoid origins and platyr- pithecidae is defined to receive some rhines, “basal” catarrhines and Old but not all of the smaller conservative The Human Fossil Record, vol. 1. Terminology and Craniodental World monkeys, hominoids, and hu- Miocene catarrhines. Morotopithecus is Morphology of Genus Homo (Europe) man paleontology. Most of these have tentatively recognized as a hominoid By J.H. Schwartz and I. Tattersall (2002) an introductory chapter with special apparently predating the hylobatid- New York: Wiley-Liss. 388 pp. $125 reference to the historical emphasis hominid divergence on the basis of de- (cloth); ISBN 0-471-31927-9. that Hartwig desired, followed by rived features of one lumbar vertebra three to five solid chapters reviewing a and an uncertainly referred scapular Major reviews1 of the entire record of small geographic or taxonomic seg- glenoid fragment, combined with primate paleontology are few and far ment of the fossil record in semi-stan- craniodental and femoral morphology between. In fact, ironically, the three that would most readily have come to dardized format. This begins with a like that of proconsulids. Harrison hes- mind before 2002 were authored or ed- history of discovery and debate itantly rejects the alternative that Moro- ited either by this journal’s editor1 or (which readers might think too long topithecus is an afropithecine with a your humble reviewer.2,3 Two shorter compared to later sections), followed unique axial skeleton, convergent on texts4,5 are less detailed and not up to by taxonomic and morphological de- hominoids perhaps due to its large date. The situation is reversed for vol- tail, and concluding with a discussion mass. This taxon might be pivotal in umes concentrating on human paleon- of evolutionary patterns and interpre- understanding hominoid origins, espe- tology: The entire allotted space of this tations. The taxonomy section fea- cially if its age is closer to 21 Ma instead review would be required to list the ma- tures a classification to the species of the faunally derived 15 Ma. However, jority of such works. Despite their level, then a review of each included if it predates the gibbon-great ape split rather similar titles, the books by genus with discussion of the type spe- it would still not refute the model of Hartwig and by Schwartz and Tattersall cies, and sometimes all others, pro- hominoid (or hominid) diversification 9,10 are in fact quite distinct, but both are ceeding from type specimen through outside of Africa, followed by homi- welcome additions to the evolutionary age and geographic range to a variably nine reentry to Africa. anthropologist’s reference shelf. detailed anatomical definition or dis- In addition to refining that model, In his preface and introduction, cussion. There are no synonymies, Begun’s review of European homi- Hartwig specifically positions his an- and authorship often is not provided noids surveys Dryopithecus, Oreo- thology as a successor to Szalay and for subgenera or suprageneric taxa. pithecus, and Ouranopithecus (generi- Delson’s book2 and as a technical This is in strong contrast to the unnec- cally separated from Graecopithecus) complement to works by Conroy,5 essary but uniform listing of type and extends into southwest Asia to Fleagle,1 and others such as Martin,6 specimen catalog numbers, which will discuss Griphopithecus and Ankara- which are less focused on paleoprima- be useful only to potential revisers, pithecus. Kelley examines the Asian tology. Hartwig’s volume includes who would have to go to the original hominoids, overlapping Begun’s dis- twenty-five chapters by thirty-one au- sources anyway. cussion of Griphopithecus but, sur- thors, few of which can be individu- Space prevents discussion of most prisingly, ignoring Ankarapithecus ally discussed here. Only three au- chapters here, but the section on homi- while concentrating on Sivapithecus thors contributed to more than one noids may be of greatest interest to this and Lufengpithecus. The last genus is chapter, always in different sections journal’s readers. Pilbeam introduces placed in a new pongine tribe, but I (Rasmussen on primate origins and the topic with an insightful review of am unconvinced, preferring to con- early catarrhines, Walker on lorisids prior studies, emphasizing some of the sider it, like Dryopithecus, a “stem and early Homo, and Begun on plio- diverse approaches and arguments hominid.” Although their fossils are pithecids and European hominoids). since his own last major analysis7 but rare, hylobatids are important both as avoiding or ignoring an even more in- a divergent hominoid clade and for fluential predecessor.8 Harrison surveys their reflection of conservative mor- late Oligocene to mid-Miocene ca- phology, yet neither Kelley nor any tarrhines, arriving at several important, other author discusses them. Ward Evolutionary Anthropology 12:106–108 (2003) if controversial, conclusions. He pre- and Duren return to Africa to survey DOI 10.1002/evan.10112 Published online in Wiley InterScience sents in detail his previously summa- the later Miocene taxa. They follow (www.interscience.wiley.com). rized argument that Proconsul and Andrews11,12 by including the afro- BOOK REVIEWS Evolutionary Anthropology 107 pithecines (Nacholapithecus and Equa- pitfalls of using numerous characters (mid-Magdalenian). Why certain Late torius) and kenyapithecines (Keny- in a parsimony analysis. Begun specif- Upper Paleolithic moderns are in- apithecus) in Hominidae, while leaving ically prefers one cladogram based on cluded and others ignored is never ad- Otavipithecus, Samburupithecus, and “informed choice,” while I worry also dressed. Maps showing all site loca- Orrorin of uncertain subfamily status. about the clarity and reproducibility tions follow drawings of the Generic diagnoses for the first three of character-state coding. More im- craniodental elements that label fea- are long and detailed, and the evolu- portant, however, is the question of tures discussed in the text. tionary discussion clear if too brief: whether readers should be left to draw Each sample is well illustrated, al- For example, Ward and Duren tanta- their own conclusions in a book like most always by monochrome photo- lizingly suggest that new fossils from this. I suggest that it is more valuable graphs taken by the senior author, al- Kenya may refute the “African re-en- for authors to present and argue for though a few by other photographers try” hypothesis. I was surprised at the their interpretations, even if some are used, and several digital images of lack of reciprocal referencing among may prove ephemeral. The reader can casts fill gaps that would otherwise these and other chapters. Ward and decide which are worthwhile only if exist. As this review was to be submit- Duren specifically refer to both Kelley alternatives are clearly presented. ted, the original Combe Capelle 1 and Harrison, without supporting or Hartwig wisely allowed authors to de- skull, described from such a cast, was refuting the latter. But all four of these termine their own taxonomies, rather rediscovered.15 The original photos chapters overlap significantly and than imposing a standard system, but are excellent, although the final qual- most authors appear to be unaware of he failed to follow through by encour- ity is reduced through less than supe- the others. That is a common problem aging clear diagrams and phyloge- rior publishing. The remains are de- in most collected volumes: If the edi- netic conclusions as well. scribed in moderate detail, beginning tor does not supervise interaction By contrast, the number of speci- with generalities about preservation among related chapters it will not men illustrations in this work is high. and the entire cranium, then proceed- happen, and the overall value of the Their quality is mixed, but usually is ing from the face over the vault to the book is reduced. good for both photographs and draw- base, several “endocranial compart- Another deficit of the volume is the ings although, in some cases, neither ments,” the mandible, and the denti- rarity of discussion of taxonomic en- sources nor permissions are obvious. tion. When numerous specimens are tities above the genus level. Subfami- On the other hand, maps showing site known from a site, one or more are lies, families, superfamilies, and even locations are entirely absent. Errors of used as reference standards and oth- ordinal-group taxa (even the few fact exist but are not rampant; no fin- ers briefly compared to them. The newly named ones) are not character-