DOCSLIB.ORG

13 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Status

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
13 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Status Paper No. : 14 Human Origin and Evolution Module : 13 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Dr. Satwanti Kapoor (Retd Professor) Paper Coordinator Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Ms. Sangeeta Dey & Prof. A.K. Kapoor Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. R.K. Pathak Content Reviewer Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh 1 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name Human Origin and Evolution Module Name/Title Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Module Id 13 Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Ramapithecus 3. Significant anatomical characteristics of Ramapithecus 4. Discovery and distribution of Ramapithecus 5. Paleoanthopological evidence from India with special references to Siwaliks 6. Phylogenetic position of Ramapithecus 7. Controversy regarding the taxonomy of Ramapithecus Summary Learning Objectives: To describe the physical features of Ramapithecus To understand the Phylogenetic position of Ramapithecus To describe the fossil evidences recovered in the context of Ramapithecus To learn about the facts that leads to the evolutionary advancement of hominid line To understand the taxonomic status of Ramapithecus 2 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology 1. Introduction The geological time scale starts with the formation of the earth, some 4.6 billion years ago. The first and longest span of time was the pre-Cambrian, where forms of life were small, simple and soft-bodied. The onset of Cambrian about 570 million years ago marked the rise of shelled animals in the sea. Then followed the “ages” of the fish, Amphibians and Reptiles, culminating in the domination of land by the dinosaurs, from about 200 to 65 million years ago. Mammals first appeared more than 200 million years ago, but were overshadowed by the reptiles. However, some 65 million years ago all the dinosaurs – as well as other groups of reptiles on land, in the sea and in the air, and certain other animal groups and many plants too – became extinct over a relatively short period. This was only one of several “mass extinctions” that have occurred through geological time. The extinction marked the beginning of the Tertiary period and the Age of Mammals. The Tertiary is divided into epochs, and development in the primate group can be traced from the fossils they left in the rocks formed during the time. The first hominids (members of our family Hominidae) crop up in the fossil record less than million years ago. Mammalian evolution covers only about 4 percent of the Earth’s entire history, and humans have been around for only 0.1 percent of the history of our planet. The quest for our ultimate origins began with the origin of life itself. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Fossil evidence shows that small, simple organisms were living at least 3 billion years ago. A great deal of evidence supports the notion that all present day organisms are related to each other, and these forms as diverse as slime molds and elephants, oak trees and beetles, roses and humans – ultimately arose from a single common ancestor, some 3.5 billion years ago. This means that a single evolutionary tree or phylogeny, relates all organisms, living and extinct. Biologists and palaeontologists assume that life evolved from its simple beginnings through a succession of stages, as represented in the fossil record, toward the present day diversity of some 10 – 30 million 3 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology species. This does not mean that today’s diversity is in some way the destiny or the end point of evolution; there has been great diversity in the past, and there may be in the future. Source Link: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjP2oi j_sPTAhUBrI8KHW74BywQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portal.gsi.gov.in%2Fpls%2Fp ortal%2Furl%2Fpage%2FGSI_STATIC%2FGSI_STAT_GEOLOGY_LIFE_AGES&psig=AFQjC NFsx3p8DjiWKjA4dY2wrzEn5hpFdw&ust=1493360154025061 2. Ramapithecus The last and most important hominid from Miocene period is the Ramapithecus. It is accepted by many scholars to be the first true hominid. Ramapithecus dates back to the period between 14 – 10 million years ago. It was discovered and christened as Rama’s ape by Edward Lewis in the year 1934. The specimen was later analyzed by Simons in the year 1964. Simons gave the name Ramapithecus punjabicus to this find, which was a long time thought to be the highest evolved form in the Hominid evolution, belonging to the ape group of Dryopithecus. The fossils of Ramapithecus (Primarily teeth and jaw) come from two areas: the Siwalik Hills in India and Fort 4 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology Ternan in Kenya. Other specimens have been discovered from Turkey, Hungary and Greece. The Ramapithecus fossils roughly date back to periods between 14 and 9 million years ago. The ecological setting of Fort Ternan and the Siwalik Hill fossils is that of a forest woodland environment. The Greek fossils, being younger, are that of a drier, savanna like environment. The hominid features of Ramapithecus include reduced and vertically implanted incisors, and canines, little or no diastema, flattened and thick enamelled premolars and molars that appear to be adapted for heavy chewing and processing of heavy food stuffs. Moreover, the placements of chewing muscles indicated an increased chewing pressure brought to bear on the food being eaten. These features, sufficiently different from the earlier Miocene fossils, indicate Ramapithecus direction to hominid line – perhaps the first hominid. Picture: Ramapithecus 5 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology Source Link: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ve d=0ahUKEwibtf- Bq8TTAhWFvo8KHVb2CAYQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thoughtco.com%2Fsivapit hecus-ramapithecus- 1093141&psig=AFQjCNHWiQO7dhmzNUQtEVDDl374o_S5JA&ust=1493372171588560 Ramapithecus specimens very strongly suggest the exploitation of a new dietary source – most likely seeds, nuts and grasses – that indicate a shift from the softer forest fruits and vegetables relied upon by apes. This dietary shift is rather clearly associated with the climatic changes in the later part of Miocene that led to an increase in open grasslands and the decrease in the forest habitat of apes. There is a greater probability that this hominid form apparently was moving into a new ecological niche; it was beginning to exploit a more open ground environment similar to that inhabited by later hominids. Ramapithecus is also the most likely candidate for the ancestry of later hominids because of its presence in an area where the next hominids – the Australopithecus - have been found. The possible adaptation that Ramapithecus made to open – ground living include an increased degree of hand and finger preparation of food, perhaps more frequent use of tools in such preparation, a tendency towards upright posture and bipedal locomotion for movement with a wide field of vision through the tall grasses on the open plain, possibly longer periods of growth and development, and perhaps, even a more frequent inclusion of meat in the diet. None of these adaptations can be clearly demonstrated because of lack of fossil evidences, but what we do know is that these adaptations were clearly present by the time the next phase of hominid evolution – the Australopithecus – had began. It is highly likely that Ramapithecus had begun to evolve and acquire those hominid features that led to the evolution of Australopithecus. 6 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology 3. Significant Anatomical Characteristics of Ramapithecus Facial profile of Ramapithecus is orthognathus that the profile is the face nearly vertical with straight jawed with the front of the head or skull is perpendicular in consequence of the shortness of the jaws. Ramapithecus has nearly vertical placement of incisors and canines opposite to apes which has teeth in slight procumbent position. Generally apes have projected canines with large spaces in between whereas Ramapithecus canines are not projected and they posses very narrow spaces. It has canine fossa or depression encountered in fossils Ramapithecus kenyapithecus. The gap between two teeth is usually referred as diastema and it is evident in apes whereas in Ramapithecus, little or no diastema was found. Source Link: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact =8&ved=0ahUKEwjSqMrbq8TTAhVLpo8KHQqWCqIQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2F 7 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology www.angelfire.com%2Fmi%2Fdinosaurs%2Fzramapithecus.html&psig=AFQjCNHWiQO7 dhmzNUQtEVDDl374o_S5JA&ust=1493372171588560 The size of the front teeth that is incisors and the canines to that of the cheek teeth that is premolars and molars is nearly the same which is an indication of human characteristics. The premolars and the molars due to the changed in food habits and because of adaptation from soft food to heavy chewing and grinding of hard food stuff led becomes flattening and deposited with thick enamel. The molars posses the Y-5 cusp pattern as in Dryopithecus. The size of the third molar is reduced as compare to the first and second molar. Tooth rows are slightly divergent and have been identified as parabolic or slightly V-shape by some scholars. Maxilla reduced in size which indicates a placement of the chewing muscles which actually increases the chewing pressures required to bear or chew the foods being eaten. Inside the lower jaw of Ramapithecus shelf –like ridges are present. There is a presence of large inferior torus on mandible Ramapithecus posses rounded dental arcade. Like humans, the palate of the Ramapithecus is arched. 8 Ramapithecus: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic status Anthropology 4. Discovery and Distribution of Ramapithecus G.E. Lewis in 1932 made the discovery of Ramapithecus for the first time ever in the Siwalik Hill region of India.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Taxonomic Tapestries 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]
  • Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All Biologists Use a Single Naming System That Essentially Follows the Practice O
    Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All biologists use a single naming system that essentially follows the practice of Linnaeus. Taxa are always given Latin names (or Latinized ones). This is a label and not a definition. (Homo sapiens – wise man) The name of a species always consists of two words – the genus (generic) name followed by the species (specific) name. Grammatically, the genus is a noun and the species is adjective or another noun in opposition. The genus name is always capitalized and italicized. The species name is italicized only. If you used the genus name already you may use the first letter followed by a period. Homo sapiens, H. sapiens In the rare cases where a subgenus name is used it is capitalized, italicized and put in parentheses after the genus. Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus If a subspecies name is used it comes at the end and is italicized only. E.G. Homo sapiens sapiens Categories above the genus level are capitalized but not italicized. They generally have endings that show the level of classification. ini for tribe (Infraorder), oidea for superfamily, idae for family. Above the superfamily the only rule is that the name must be Latin or Latinized. The Latin names are often anglicized by dropping the ending and it is not normally capitalized. Hominidae – hominid. Technically the full name of the taxon should include the name of its inventor and the date but this is only done if the discussion is concerning the taxonomy of the name. Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 Ideally, a taxon should have only one name, but some have been given more than one and there is a disagreement over which one has priority or which one is better.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mysterious Phylogeny of Gigantopithecus
    Kimberly Nail Department ofAnthropology University ofTennessee - Knoxville The Mysterious Phylogeny of Gigantopithecus Perhaps the most questionable attribute given to Gigantopithecus is its taxonomic and phylogenetic placement in the superfamily Hominoidea. In 1935 von Koenigswald made the first discovery ofa lower molar at an apothecary in Hong Kong. In a mess of"dragon teeth" von Koenigswald saw a tooth that looked remarkably primate-like and purchased it; this tooth would later be one offour looked at by a skeptical friend, Franz Weidenreich. It was this tooth that von Koenigswald originally used to name the species Gigantopithecus blacki. Researchers have only four mandibles and thousands ofteeth which they use to reconstruct not only the existence ofthis primate, but its size and phylogeny as well. Many objections have been raised to the past phylogenetic relationship proposed by Weidenreich, Woo, and von Koenigswald that Gigantopithecus was a forerunner to the hominid line. Some suggest that researchers might be jumping the gun on the size attributed to Gigantopithecus (estimated between 10 and 12 feet tall); this size has perpetuated the idea that somehow Gigantopithecus is still roaming the Himalayas today as Bigfoot. Many researchers have shunned the Bigfoot theory and focused on the causes of the animals extinction. It is my intention to explain the theories ofthe past and why many researchers currently disagree with them. It will be necessary to explain how the researchers conducted their experiments and came to their conclusions as well. The Research The first anthropologist to encounter Gigantopithecus was von Koenigswald who happened upon them in a Hong Kong apothecary selling "dragon teeth." Due to their large size one may not even have thought that they belonged to any sort ofprimate, however von Koenigswald knew better because ofthe markings on the molar.
    [Show full text]
  • Reassessment of the Phylogenetic Relationships of the Late Miocene Apes Hispanopithecus and Rudapithecus Based on Vestibular Morphology
    Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of the late Miocene apes Hispanopithecus and Rudapithecus based on vestibular morphology Alessandro Urciuolia,1, Clément Zanollib, Sergio Almécijaa,c,d, Amélie Beaudeta,e,f,g, Jean Dumoncelh, Naoki Morimotoi, Masato Nakatsukasai, Salvador Moyà-Solàa,j,k, David R. Begunl, and David M. Albaa,1 aInstitut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain; bUniv. Bordeaux, CNRS, MCC, PACEA, UMR 5199, F-33600 Pessac, France; cDivision of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024; dNew York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, New York, NY 10016; eDepartment of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QH, United Kingdom; fSchool of Geography, Archaeology, and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, WITS 2050, South Africa; gDepartment of Anatomy, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0001, South Africa; hLaboratoire Anthropology and Image Synthesis, UMR 5288 CNRS, Université de Toulouse, 31073 Toulouse, France; iLaboratory of Physical Anthropology, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, 606 8502 Kyoto, Japan; jInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, 08010 Barcelona, Spain; kUnitat d’Antropologia, Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain; and lDepartment of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 2S2, Canada Edited by Justin S. Sipla, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, and accepted by Editorial Board Member C. O. Lovejoy December 3, 2020 (received for review July 19, 2020) Late Miocene great apes are key to reconstructing the ancestral Dryopithecus and allied forms have long been debated. Until a morphotype from which earliest hominins evolved. Despite con- decade ago, several species of European apes from the middle sensus that the late Miocene dryopith great apes Hispanopithecus and late Miocene were included within this genus (9–16).
    [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]