DOCSLIB.ORG

The Cranium of Parapithecus Grangeri, an Egyptian Oligocene Anthropoidean Primate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Cranium of Parapithecus Grangeri, an Egyptian Oligocene Anthropoidean Primate The cranium of Parapithecus grangeri, an Egyptian Oligocene anthropoidean primate Elwyn L. Simons* Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University and Duke University Primate Center, 3705 Erwin Road, Durham, NC 27705-5000 Contributed by Elwyn L. Simons, January 2, 2001 A nearly complete skull of Parapithecus grangeri from the early Oligocene of Egypt is described. The specimen is relatively undis- torted and is undoubtedly the most complete higher primate skull yet found in the African Oligocene, which also makes it the most complete Oligocene primate cranium worldwide. Belonging in superfamily Parapithecoidea, a group regarded by some as the sister group to all other Anthropoidea, this skull reveals important information about the radiation of stem anthropoideans. This cranium is about 15% larger than size estimates based on a fragmentary cranium of its contemporary and close relative Apidium phiomense. It is about the same size as that of the gray gentle lemur, Hapalemur griseus, or of platyrrhines such as the owl monkey, Aotus trivirgatus, or the titi monkey, Callicebus torquatus. Comparatively small orbits and size differences in jaws and teeth show it was both diurnal and dimorphic. This is the only specimen of the species that shows (from sockets) that there were four small upper incisors. Several mandibular specimens of the species estab- lish that there were no permanent lower incisors and that the symphysis was fused. Like other early anthropoideans this species possessed a lower encephalization quotient and less-developed orbital frontality than later anthropoideans. There is full post- orbital closure and fusion of the metopic suture, and the ectotym- panic forms a rim to the auditory aperture. A probable frontal͞ alisphenoid contact is a potentially derived resemblance to Fig. 1. Relative cranial size of five species of Fayum Eocene and Oligocene Catarrhini. A proposed separate genus for the species P. grangeri primates, plotting orbital width against cranial length, and compared with a is not sustained. dwarf lemur, Cheirogaleus medius, and a slender loris, Loris tardigradus. ocene and Oligocene continental beds exposed in badlands species there are very few attributable postcranial bones from Elying north of Lake Qarun, Fayum Province, Egypt have which absolute size could be estimated. Because of the quality of produced a diverse vertebrate fauna as well as a broad series of preservation almost every detail of taxonomic or phyletic sig- fossil primates that include the world’s earliest undoubted and nificance about the cranium of Parapithecus can be determined well documented anthropoideans (see refs. 1 and 2 and refer- such as the arrangement, structure and dental formula of the ences therein). This specimen is of Oligocene age, being about upper teeth, shape of the premaxilla, location of the lacrimal 33 million years old (3). The skull was discovered in the central bone and foramen, extent of postorbital closure, exposure of the Ϸ part of Fayum Quarry I, a site that lies 200 m above the base frontal͞alisphenoid contact, size of the infraorbital and zygo- of the upper sequence of the Jebel Qatrani Formation, Fayum maticofacial (malar) foramina, metopic sutural closure, extent of Province, Egypt (4). This quarry was discovered in December the lateral pterygoid alae, proportions of the palate and nares, 1962 and has been collected from almost continuously since that and precise structure of the auditory region and basicranium. time until the present. But over this long period, during which Most of the details of cranial structure described here can be thousands of vertebrate fossils, including hundreds of primate seen more clearly than in almost all of the previously discovered maxillae and mandibles, were collected, no essentially complete skulls of Fayum primates. primate cranium was ever found there. The closest approxima- tion came in 1989 when a partial cranium of Apidium phiomense Systematics [Duke University Primate Center (DPC) 9867] was located in Order Primates Linnaeus, 1758: Suborder Anthropoidea Mivart, 1864; Quarry I. That specimen is dorsventrally crushed and lacks most Superfamily Parapithecoidea, Ka¨lin, 1961; Family Parapithecidae, of the basicranium and part of the facial region (5). In contrast, Schlosser, 1911. the cranial specimen described here, DPC 18651, is undistorted and has lost only the upper canines and two pairs of incisors Genus Parapithecus Schlosser, 1911. Emended generic diagnosis. (sockets only) and the left zygomatic arch. The specimen is Original descriptions of the genus and its distinctiveness were nearly unique in another respect in that it was almost completely based on the single individual lower dentition of the type enclosed in a rock-hard sandstone concretion that accounted for its relative lack of distortion. Abbreviations: CGM, Geological Museum, Cairo; YPM, Peabody Museum, Yale University; This cranium of Parapithecus is distinctly larger than well DPC, Duke University Primate Center; SNM, Stutgart Natural History Museum. preserved skulls of Fayum late Eocene Proteopithecus and *E-mail: [email protected]. Catopithecus, which are only about 70% as long as Parapithecus. The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This In turn, the length of this Parapithecus skull is only about 60% article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. that of the best-preserved Aegyptopithecus skull (Fig. 1). In this §1734 solely to indicate this fact. 7892–7897 ͉ PNAS ͉ July 3, 2001 ͉ vol. 98 ͉ no. 14 www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.051003398 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 specimen of the genus and species, Parapithecus fraasi. This maxillae DPC 2372 and 8793; attached parietal bones DPC 1098; specimen, Stutgart Natural History Museum (SNM) 12639a, a series of mandibular fragments particularly Peabody Museum, contained lower teeth in a partly preserved mandible that lacked Yale University (YPM) 21010; YPM 21019a, YPM 23796, YPM only the right P2, showed symphyseal fusion, and also showed a 26918;YPM 23953; YPM 23954; YPM 23973; DPC 1009; DPC unique feature among primates in that it appears to have lacked 1049; DPC 1053; DPC 1091; DPC 2376; DPC 2399; DPC 2807; adult lower incisors and had retained into young adulthood only DPC 2944;DPC 3110; DPC 3135; DPC 3876; DPC 3899; DPC a single pair of milk incisors. Almost every observation that 5263; DPC 5527; DPC 6326; DPC 6313; DPC 7252; DPC 8796; could or can be made about this specimen has been discussed and DPC 9857; DPC 10692; DPC 12303; DPC 13584; DPC 13589; challenged in a long series of papers (see refs. 5–14 and DPC 13590; DPC 14304; DPC 20580; numerous isolated teeth references therein). In the species to which the cranium de- and less complete YPM and DPC jaw fragments, and numerous scribed here belongs, Parapithecus grangeri, permanent lower specimens at the CGM including CGM 26918. incisors are lost, lower canines contact and wear against each other, and the mandibular symphysis is solidly fused. Dentally, Description and Comparison Parapithecus differs from Serapia in having P2 smaller, not larger Cranial Size and Braincase. DPC 18651 is the least distorted than P3. It is unlike Apidium in having premolars and molars that primate skull so far found in the Fayum Paleogene badlands and are less cuspidate, with relatively smaller hypocone and M3͞3as there seems to have been little dorsoventral compression of the well as showing the P2–4 central cusp comparatively smaller than braincase. The orbital margins have been somewhat deformed in the latter genus. Also unlike Apidium, where M1–3 distinctly but are clearly smaller relative to overall size than in skulls of the increase in size posteriorly, M1–3 of Parapithecus are subequal in South American monkey Callicebus torquatus. This cranium is Ͻ length or M3 M2. Parapithecus shows a shorter rostrum, and 65.8 mm long, which is similar to the skull length of Aotus comparatively smaller upper incisors (alveolae) as well as rela- trivirgatus or C. torquatus, whereas the occlusal area of the upper tively larger canines (both upper and lower) than Apidium.It premolars and molars of P. grangeri is clearly much greater and differs from Apidium in that the four main upper molar cusps are the brain volume distinctly smaller than in the latter two at the corners of a square, rather than having the hypocone much platyrrhines. The surface area of these upper teeth in Aotus is more lingually situated. Also, it differs from Qatrania in lacking approximately one-third and that of C. torquatus is 60% of that the large M1 trigonid that is open lingually. Qatrania has of P. grangeri. Kay and I (15) estimated the body weight of P. relatively larger hypoconulids that are closer to the entoconid. It grangeri as about 1,800 g (range 1632–1990). Such a body weight differs from Serapia in exhibiting almost no expression of the is more than twice the weight of these two monkeys and falls paraconid. P. grangeri has a comparatively larger zygomatic rather in the range of modern Cebus monkeys. Clearly, like foramen than does A. phiomense. In my view (see refs. 11 and 13) Aegyptopithecus, Parapithecus had a relatively much smaller brain no characters exist to validate a separate genus, Simonsius, used in relation to body size than does any living anthropoidean. by some authors (8, 14) for the species P. grangeri. Parapithecus is a medium-sized Fayum primate (Fig. 1). In Type species. P. fraasi. comparison, Proteopithecus has a skull length of about two-thirds Hypodigm. A single known specimen in the collection of the that of Parapithecus, DPC 18651, and it in turn is about 60% the SNM, SNM 12639a, is discussed but see below under species length of crania of Aegyptopithecus, see Fig. 1. distribution. I (5) figured and discussed facial (DPC 2385), frontal (DPC Species diagnosis. P. fraasi possesses larger and more bulbous 6641), and parietal (DPC 1098) fragments that I assigned to P.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cat Mandible (II): Manipulation of the Jaw, with a New Prosthesis Proposal, to Avoid Iatrogenic Complications
    animals Review The Cat Mandible (II): Manipulation of the Jaw, with a New Prosthesis Proposal, to Avoid Iatrogenic Complications Matilde Lombardero 1,*,† , Mario López-Lombardero 2,†, Diana Alonso-Peñarando 3,4 and María del Mar Yllera 1 1 Unit of Veterinary Anatomy and Embryology, Department of Anatomy, Animal Production and Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Campus of Lugo—University of Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain; [email protected] 2 Engineering Polytechnic School of Gijón, University of Oviedo, 33203 Gijón, Spain; [email protected] 3 Department of Animal Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Campus of Lugo—University of Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain; [email protected] 4 Veterinary Clinic Villaluenga, calle Centro n◦ 2, Villaluenga de la Sagra, 45520 Toledo, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-982-822-333 † Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Simple Summary: The small size of the feline mandible makes its manipulation difficult when fixing dislocations of the temporomandibular joint or mandibular fractures. In both cases, non-invasive techniques should be considered first. When not possible, fracture repair with internal fixation using bone plates would be the best option. Simple jaw fractures should be repaired first, and caudal to rostral. In addition, a ventral approach makes the bone fragments exposure and its manipulation easier. However, the cat mandible has little space to safely place the bone plate screws without damaging the tooth roots and/or the mandibular blood and nervous supply. As a consequence, we propose a conceptual model of a mandibular prosthesis that would provide biomechanical Citation: Lombardero, M.; stabilization, avoiding any unintended (iatrogenic) damage to those structures.
    [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]
  • Why Fuse the Mandibular Symphysis? a Comparative Analysis
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 112:517–540 (2000) Why Fuse the Mandibular Symphysis? A Comparative Analysis D.E. LIEBERMAN1,2 AND A.W. CROMPTON2 1Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, and Human Origins Program, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560 2Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 KEY WORDS symphysis; mammals; primates; electromyograms; mandible; mastication ABSTRACT Fused symphyses, which evolved independently in several mammalian taxa, including anthropoids, are stiffer and stronger than un- fused symphyses. This paper tests the hypothesis that orientations of tooth movements during occlusion are the primary basis for variations in symph- yseal fusion. Mammals whose teeth have primarily dorsally oriented occlusal trajectories and/or rotate their mandibles during occlusion will not benefit from symphyseal fusion because it prevents independent mandibular move- ments and because unfused symphyses transfer dorsally oriented forces with equal efficiency; mammals with predominantly transverse power strokes are predicted to benefit from symphyseal fusion or greatly restricted mediolateral movement at the symphysis in order to increase force transfer efficiency across the symphysis in the transverse plane. These hypotheses are tested with comparative data on symphyseal and occlusal morphology in several mammals, and with kinematic and EMG analyses of mastication in opossums (Didelphis virginiana) and
    [Show full text]
  • Identification Notes &~@~-/~: ~~*~@~,~ 'PTILE
    CATEGORY Identification Notes &~@~-/~: ~~*~@~,~ ‘PTILE for wildlife law enforcement ~ C.rnrn.n N.rn./s: Al@~O~, c~~~dil., ~i~.xl, Gharial PROBLEM: Skulls of Crocodilians are often imported as souvenirs. nalch (-”W 4(JI -“by ieeth ??la&ularJy+i9 GUIDE TO PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF CROCODILL4N SKULLS 1. Nasal bones separated from nasal aperture; mandibular symphysis extends to the 15th tooth. 2. Gavialis gangeticus Nasal bones entering the nasal aperture; mandibular symphysisdoes not extend beyond the8th tooth . Tomistoma schlegelii 2. Nasal bones separated from premaxillary bones; 27 -29maxi11aryteeth,25 -26mandibularteeth Nasal bones in contact with premaxillaq bo Qoco@khs acutus teeth, 18-19 mandibular teeth . Tomiitomaschlegelii 3. Fourth mandibular tooth usually fitting into a notch in the maxilla~, 16-19 maxillary teeth, 14-15 mandibular teeth . .4 Osteolaemus temaspis Fourth mandibular tooth usually fitting into a pit in the maxilla~, 14-20 maxillary teeth, 17-22 mandibular teeth . .5 4. Nasal bones do not divide nasal aperture. .. CrocodylW (12 species) Alligator m&siss@piensh Nasalboncx divide nasal aperture . Osteolaemustetraspk. 5. Nasal bones do not divide nasal aperture. .6 . Paleosuchus mgonatus Bony septum divides nasal aperture . .. Alligator (2 species) 6. Fiveteethinpremaxilla~ bone . .7 . Melanosuchus niger Four teeth in premaxillary bone. ...Paleosuchus (2species) 7. Vomerexposed on the palate . Melanosuchusniger Caiman crocodiles Vomer not exposed on palate . ...”..Caiman (2species) Illustrations from: Moo~ C. C 1921 Me&m, F. 19S1 L-.. Submitted by: Stephen D. Busack, Chief, Morphology Section, National Fish& Wildlife Forensics LabDate submitted 6/3/91 Prepared in cooperation with the National Fkh & Wdlife Forensics Laboratoy, Ashlar@ OR, USA ‘—m More on reverse side>>> IDentMcation Notes CATEGORY: REPTILE for wildlife law enforcement -- Crocodylia II CAmmom Nda Alligator, Crocodile, Caiman, Gharial REFERENCES Medem, F.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Review of the Embryology and Development of the Facial
    REVIEW ARTICLE Illustrated Review of the Embryology and Development of the Facial Region, Part 2: Late Development of the Fetal Face and Changes in the Face from the Newborn to Adulthood P.M. Som and T.P. Naidich ABSTRACT SUMMARY: The later embryogenesis of the fetal face and the alteration in the facial structure from birth to adulthood have been reviewed. Part 3 of the review will address the molecular mechanisms that are responsible for the changes described in parts 1 and 2. art 1 of this 3-part review primarily dealt with the early em- first make contact, each is completely covered by a homoge- Pbryologic development of the face and nasal cavity. Part 2 will neous epithelium. A special epithelium arises at the edge of discuss the later embryonic and fetal development of the face, and each palatal shelf, facilitating the eventual fusion of these changes in facial appearance from neonate to adulthood will be shelves. The epithelium on the nasal cavity surface of the palate reviewed. will differentiate into columnar ciliated epithelium. The epi- thelium on the oral cavity side of the palate will differentiate Formation of the Palate into stratified squamous epithelium. Between the sixth and 12th weeks, the palate is formed from 3 The 2 palatal shelves also fuse with the triangular primary pal- primordia: a midline median palatine process and paired lateral ate anteromedially to form a y-shaped fusion line. The point of palatine processes (Fig 1). In the beginning of the sixth week, fusion of the secondary palatal shelves with the primary palate is merging of the paired medial nasal processes forms the intermax- marked in the adult by the incisive foramen.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in Chin and Mandibular Symphysis Size and Shape in Males and Females: a CT-Based Study
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Variation in Chin and Mandibular Symphysis Size and Shape in Males and Females: A CT-Based Study Tatiana Sella Tunis 1,2,3,* , Israel Hershkovitz 1,2 , Hila May 1,2, Alexander Dan Vardimon 3, Rachel Sarig 2,3,4 and Nir Shpack 3 1 Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel; [email protected] (I.H.); [email protected] (H.M.) 2 Dan David Center for Human Evolution and Biohistory Research, Shmunis Family Anthropology Institute, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel; [email protected] 3 Department of Orthodontics, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel; [email protected] (A.D.V.); [email protected] (N.S.) 4 Department of Oral Biology, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +972-3-640-7310 Received: 12 May 2020; Accepted: 11 June 2020; Published: 14 June 2020 Abstract: The chin is a unique anatomical landmark of modern humans. Its size and shape play an important role from the esthetic perspective. However, disagreement exists in the dental and anthropological literature regarding the sex differences in chin and symphysis morphometrics. The “sexual selection” theory is presented as a possible reason for chin formation in our species; however, many other contradictory theories also exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for an Asian Origin of Stem Anthropoids
    Evidence for an Asian origin of stem anthropoids Richard F. Kay1 Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-03083 n PNAS, Chaimanee et al. (1) report Genetic, embryological, and anatomical We are not there yet. Recent comprehen- a previously undescribed species of evidence demonstrates that the sister sive phylogenetic analyses stemming from I primate, Afrasia, from the late Middle group of Anthropoidea is the south Asian virtually the same datasets yield somewhat Eocene of Burma. They identify tarsier, with the two forming the crown different cladograms that reflect sensitivity Afrasia as the sister taxon to the African group Haplorhini (6–8). The other clade of to which taxa are included in the analysis genus Afrotarsius but slightly more primitive extant primates is the lemurs and lorises, and which sets of analytical assumptions are than it and allied with stem Anthropoidea called Strepsirrhini. Eocene Holarctic selected. Pertinent to the biogeographic of south Asia. Anthropoidea is the taxo- Omomyoidea are generally considered as conclusions of Chaimanee et al. (1), Seiffert nomic group that today includes New and stem haplorhines, although the precise et al. (11) conclude that Afrotarsius cha- Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. If relationship of omomyoids to tarsiers and trathi [a younger species than the one that upheld, the biogeographic significance of anthropoids is uncertain (8). Tarsius often Chaimanee et al. (1) describe] is an African these results is profound: If Afrasia and is considered to be a relictual omomyoid tarsioid. If Seiffert et al. (11) are correct, Afrotarsius are as closely related as Chai- in south Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Old World Monkeys
    2003. 5. 23 Dr. Toshio MOURI Old World monkey Although Old World monkey, as a word, corresponds to New World monkey, its taxonomic rank is much lower than that of the New World Monkey. Therefore, it is speculated that the last common ancestor of Old World monkeys is newer compared to that of New World monkeys. While New World monkey is the vernacular name for infraorder Platyrrhini, Old World Monkey is the vernacular name for superfamily Cercopithecoidea (family Cercopithecidae is limited to living species). As a side note, the taxon including Old World Monkey at the same taxonomic level as New World Monkey is infraorder Catarrhini. Catarrhini includes Hominoidea (humans and apes), as well as Cercopithecoidea. Cercopithecoidea comprises the families Victoriapithecidae and Cercopithecidae. Victoriapithecidae is fossil primates from the early to middle Miocene (15-20 Ma; Ma = megannum = 1 million years ago), with known genera Prohylobates and Victoriapithecus. The characteristic that defines the Old World Monkey (as synapomorphy – a derived character shared by two or more groups – defines a monophyletic taxon), is the bilophodonty of the molars, but the development of biphilophodonty in Victoriapithecidae is still imperfect, and crista obliqua is observed in many maxillary molars (as well as primary molars). (Benefit, 1999; Fleagle, 1999) Recently, there is an opinion that Prohylobates should be combined with Victoriapithecus. Living Old World Monkeys are all classified in the family Cercopithecidae. Cercopithecidae comprises the subfamilies Cercopithecinae and Colobinae. Cercopithecinae has a buccal pouch, and Colobinae has a complex, or sacculated, stomach. It is thought that the buccal pouch is an adaptation for quickly putting rare food like fruit into the mouth, and the complex stomach is an adaptation for eating leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 9 - LOWER PRIMATES and MONKEYS We Humans Are Classified As Members of Order Primates
    CHAPTER 9 - LOWER PRIMATES AND MONKEYS We humans are classified as members of Order Primates. In the Linnaean system, Primates are commonly broken down into subgroups as follows. Visual ORDER PRIMATES # 9-1 Suborder Prosimii Suborder Anthropoidea (Strepsirrhines) (Haplorrhines) Lemurs/Lorises Aye-ayes Adapoids Tarsiers Omomyids Platyrrhines Catarrhines (extinct) (extinct) (nostrils nostrils facing facing sideways) down or front) New World Old World Apes Humans monkeys monkeys (after Perelman et al., 2011) There are obviously similarities between humans, monkeys, and apes. There are contradictory explanations: (1) Common design, and (2) Common ancestry with later evolution. Each is a matter of faith and cannot be tested. Initial Complexity leads us to believe that humans and each primate kind were directly created Visual # 9-2 and have varied only within definite genetic limits. By contrast, Initial Disorganization leads us to believe that each type of primate has evolved from some lower type, starting with something similar to lagomorphs (rabbits and hares). Perelman, Johnson et al. (2011) give the most common scenario, that one of these evolved to something like tree shrews (Scandentia), which in turn evolved into Dermoptera (colugos or “flying lemurs”), then primates. In order for us to tell which is more likely to be correct, we can look at the available fossils. • If Initial Complexity is correct, there should be a complete absence of transitional forms between any of the groups shown above. There should also be a resistance to basic change in each of the primate groups. They may exhibit variation within a kind, but there should be no traces of evolution from one kind to another.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Laurasian Diversification of a Pantropical Bird Family During The
    Ibis (2020), 162, 137–152 doi: 10.1111/ibi.12707 Rapid Laurasian diversification of a pantropical bird family during the Oligocene–Miocene transition CARL H. OLIVEROS,1,2* MICHAEL J. ANDERSEN,3 PETER A. HOSNER,4,7 WILLIAM M. MAUCK III,5,6 FREDERICK H. SHELDON,2 JOEL CRACRAFT5 & ROBERT G. MOYLE1 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA 2Museum of Natural Science and Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA 3Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA 4Division of Birds, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA 5Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA 6New York Genome Center, New York, NY, USA 7Natural History Museum of Denmark and Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and Climate; University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Disjunct, pantropical distributions are a common pattern among avian lineages, but dis- entangling multiple scenarios that can produce them requires accurate estimates of his- torical relationships and timescales. Here, we clarify the biogeographical history of the pantropical avian family of trogons (Trogonidae) by re-examining their phylogenetic rela- tionships and divergence times with genome-scale data. We estimated trogon phylogeny by analysing thousands of ultraconserved element (UCE) loci from all extant trogon gen- era with concatenation and coalescent approaches. We then estimated a time frame for trogon diversification using MCMCTree and fossil calibrations, after which we performed ancestral area estimation using BioGeoBEARS. We recovered the first well-resolved hypothesis of relationships among trogon genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Printing 3D Models of Canine Jaw Fractures for Teaching Undergraduate Veterinary Medicine1
    ACTA CIRÚRGICA BRASILEIRA EDUCATION Printing 3D models of canine jaw fractures for teaching undergraduate veterinary medicine1 Agnes de Souza LimaI , Marcello MachadoII , Rita de Cassia Ribeiro PereiraIII , Yuri Karaccas de Carvalho I M.Sc., Postgraduate Program in Health and Animal Production, Universidade Federal do Acre (UFAC), Rio Branco-AC, Brazil. Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; manuscript preparation and writing. II D.Sc., Department of Anatomy, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba-PR, Brazil. Scientific and intellectual content of the study. III M.Sc., Health and Sports Science Center, UFAC, Rio Branco-AC, Brazil. Technical procedures. IV D.Sc., Biological and Natural Sciences Center, UFAC, Rio Branco-AC, Brazil. Manuscript writing, critical revision, final approval. Abstract Purpose: To develop 3D anatomical models, and corresponding radiographs, of canine jaw fractures. Methods: A base model was generated from a mandibular bone scan. With this model it was possible to perform fracture planning according to the anatomical location. Results: The 3D base model of the canine mandible was similar in conformation to the natural bone, demonstrating structures such as canine tooth crowns, premolars and molars, mental foramina, body of the mandible, ramus of the mandible, masseteric fossa, the coronoid process, condylar process, and angular process. It was not possible to obtain detail of the crown of the incisor teeth, mandibular symphysis, and the medullary channel. Production of the 3D CJF model took 10.6 h, used 150.1 g of filament (ABS) and cost US$5.83. Conclusion: The 3D canine jaw fractures models, which reproduced natural canine jaw fractures, and their respective radiographic images, are a possible source of educational material for the teaching of veterinary medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • 30 Tejedor.Pmd
    Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, v.66, n.1, p.251-269, jan./mar.2008 ISSN 0365-4508 THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF NEOTROPICAL PRIMATES 1 (With 4 figures) MARCELO F. TEJEDOR 2 ABSTRACT: A significant event in the early evolution of Primates is the origin and radiation of anthropoids, with records in North Africa and Asia. The New World Primates, Infraorder Platyrrhini, have probably originated among these earliest anthropoids morphologically and temporally previous to the catarrhine/platyrrhine branching. The platyrrhine fossil record comes from distant regions in the Neotropics. The oldest are from the late Oligocene of Bolivia, with difficult taxonomic attribution. The two richest fossiliferous sites are located in the middle Miocene of La Venta, Colombia, and to the south in early to middle Miocene sites from the Argentine Patagonia and Chile. The absolute ages of these sedimentary deposits are ranging from 12 to 20 Ma, the oldest in Patagonia and Chile. These northern and southern regions have a remarkable taxonomic diversity and several extinct taxa certainly represent living clades. In addition, in younger sediments ranging from late Miocene through Pleistocene, three genera have been described for the Greater Antilles, two genera in eastern Brazil, and at least three forms for Río Acre. In general, the fossil record of South American primates sheds light on the old radiations of the Pitheciinae, Cebinae, and Atelinae. However, several taxa are still controversial. Key words: Neotropical Primates. Origin. Evolution. RESUMO: Origem e evolução dos primatas neotropicais. Um evento significativo durante o início da evolução dos primatas é a origem e a radiação dos antropóides, com registros no norte da África e da Ásia.
    [Show full text]