PRIMATE and HUMAN EVOLUTION. By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
420 BOOK REVIEWS MAN’S ANCESTORS:AN INTRODUCTIONTO necessarily be independent and parallel PRIMATEAND HUMANEVOLUTION. By in the hominoid and cercopithecoid line- Ian Tattersall. 64 pp., figures, bibliog- ages. While this is not impossible, it seems raphy, index. John Murray Publishers, less likely than the possibility that the London. 1970. $4.75 (paper). molar constriction is a parallelism. Aeol- opithecus is suggested as a possible gibbon Tattersall has written a very useful ancestor. However, in many respects it textbook for an introductory course deal- makes as good an ancestor of dryopithe- ing, in part, with primate and human cines as does Aegyptopithecus. The third evolution. The book is not thorough molars of Aeolopithecus are diminutive. enough to be the only text in a course On the other hand, the “V” shape of the dealing primarily with the fossil record, mandible, with large laterally flaring ca- but could be used along with a book like nines and crowded incisor roots, make it Guide to Fossil Man (Day), or with a read- resemble some of the earliest Miocene er for this purpose. As it is, a number of dryopithecines such as Rusinga 394 (for- different courses could be constructed us- merly “Kenyapithecus africanus”), or ing it along with another text. For in- SGR 1, the Dryopithecus major mandible. stance, used with The Meaning of Evolu- In sum, the relations of these Oligocene tion (Simpson), a course could deal with primates with later taxa may not be as evolution theory and its application to clear as Tattersall suggests. fossils, Man’s Ancestors makes an excel- In discussing the Miocene primates, he lent supplement to Origin of Man (Buett- suggests that D. nyanzae is ancestral to ner-Janusch) in a general introductory D. major and D. africanus, which, in course. turn, gave rise to gorillas and chimpan- The book includes many photographs zees. This is a very important suggestion published for the first time, such as oc- because if true, it means that hominids clusal views of Oligopithecus (fig. 7.8) and arose about 18 million years ago, since Aegyptopithecus (fig. 7.5). Indeed, the both DNA hybridization and albumin im- Oligocene and Miocene primate sections munological distance measurements show are the strongest, as one might expect. hominids are equally related to chimpan- The book becomes progressively weaker as zees and gorillas. However, he gives no one approaches the present. supportive data, indicates no supportive Tattersall promises us: “I have not tried arguments, and if anything confuses the for the sake of simplification to present entire issue by using the Moroto palate any clear-cut schemes where none exist.” to represent D. major, although this spe- However, this is not always the case. The cimen is dated considerably later than the Fayum is the only Old World primate- other dryopithecines (14 million years) yielding Oligocene site. As such, I believe and judging by the expanded anterior there has been a tendency to trace all dentition, represents an entirely different higher primate lineages to this single adaptation than the Rusinga D. major homogeneous tropical forest area! Conse- specimens. quently, Apidium is thought to be ances- The discussion of Ramapithecus as “the tral to Oreopithecus because of the cen- earliest hominid’ reviews many of the troconid cusp on the lower molars, in current arguments. However, some of his spite of the presence of a M3 from Maboko statements lend more confusion than clar- in East Africa with a centroconid cusp. ification to this very important point. For This East African site has savanna fauna, instance, the canine of the Fort Ternan and it is unlikely that the African speci- specimen is not “relatively reduced . men bore much resemblance to the iso- even compared to the smallest ape.” lated Italian swamp-ape. Parapithecus is Rather, it is about the same size, relative given as a possible ancestor of cercopithe- to the molars, as the canine of female coid monkeys because of the “waisted’ gorillas. That the premolars of the max- midpoint of the lower molars. However, illae are homomorphic is irrelevent since, Parapithecus has three premolars. Should as he points out elsewhere (p. 24), hetero- it be ancestral to the cercopithecoid mon- morphism refers only to mandibulae. Ac- keys, the loss of the third premolar would tually, there is now a mandible that goes BOOK REVIEWS 42 1 with the Fort Ternan maxilla. The pre- (STS 7) is larger than all but one other molars are present, and they are hetero- (STS 36). It is little wonder that the hu- morphic! If Ramapithecus is a hominid, merus from STS 7 seems too large for the it is for none of the reasons given above. body size of STS 14! Second, he suggests Of course, the expanded occlusal surfaces that because the average australopithe- of the molars, and the closely packed cine age at death is about 18, if reproduc- teeth, are very Australopithecus-like, but tion began at 13 most australopithecine these features also characterize Gigant- children would have neither parent alive opithecus. Again, the picture is not as by maturity. This reasoning ignores the clear as one might have hoped. high child mortality which lowers the The chapter dealing with the austral- average lifespan. Actually, of those who opithecines themselves is quite complete, survive to 13, almost 70% go on to reach discussing some of the new specimens and the age of 20, and close to 20% live to 30. emphasizing the continuous transition Consequently, most children would have between the australopithecines and Homo at least one parent through maturity, and erectus. Aside from a few mistakes (the about 20% of the children could have almost complete vertebral column, pelvis, known their grandparents, if such kinship and femur come from Sterkfontein, some relations were recognized. A. africanus specimens such as MLD 1 Unfortunately, the Middle and Late show evidence of having had a sagittal Pleistocene sections treat the fossil ma- crest, robust australopithecine anterior terial in a much more general fashion. teeth are not particularly small, etc.), I This trend is almost exponential, termi- question two of his inferences. First, he nating with the statement: “All human suggests relatively longer arms in gracile fossils younger than about 30,000 years australopithecines than in Homo sapiens, are fully modern in every particular.” stating: “the Sterkfontein humerus is as Surely human evolution did not end big as that of a modern man, and belong- 30,000 years ago! ing to a much smaller animal implies that In spite of these problems, I highly rec- the arms of A. africanus were relatively ommend the book. It is one of the best more robust that those of H. sapiens, and available for introductory courses. I have that the two species may have differed in used the book in such a course and find their body proportions.” However, the hu- that while numerous points raised by it, merus (STS 7) comes from a different in- and concepts used in it, have to be fur- dividual than the vertebral column from ther explained, the discussions are lively, which the body size estimate is based and the class maintains a high level of (STS 14). The STS 14 femur gives a cal- interest. culated height smaller than all but one other specimen (STS 65) at the site, while MILFORD H. WOLPOFF the mandible associated with the humerus University of Michigan .