Cladistic Analysis of Juvenile and Adult Hominoid Cranial Shape Variables by Thomas A. DiVito II A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida August 2011 Copyright by Thomas A. DiVito II 2011 ii Cladistic Analysis ofJuvenile and Adult Hominoid Cranial Shape Variables by Thomas A. DiVito II This thesis proposal was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. Robert C. McCarthy, Department of Anthropology, and has been approved by the members ofhis supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMaster ofArts. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ~ H~ Ctt·:-{·2 Michael S. Harris, Ph.D. Chair, Department ofAnthropology ~~ Heather Coltman, D.M.A. Interim Dean, The Dorothy F. Schmidt College ofArts & Letters 1?~.,-. ~~........ Barry T. Rdsson, Ph.D. Dean, Graduate College 111 Acknowledgements Without the support of my thesis committee, department, museum staffs, friends, and family, I could not have completed this thesis. I am incredibly grateful for Dr. Robert McCarthy‟s continued patience, knowledge, and guidance. You instructed me every step of the way, allowing me to complete this thesis with confidence. Conversations with Dr. Clifford Brown were instrumental for deciding useful test statistics. Dr. Deborah Cunningham‟s comments and revisions were invaluable. Dr. Doug Broadfield‟s assistance and support were crucial for completing this thesis and graduating. I would also like to thank the remaining faculty, staff, and students of the Anthropology Department at Florida Atlantic University for your concern, help, and encouragement during the completion of this thesis. A special thank you to Cynthia Wilson, for her much welcomed encouragement, April Watson, for her thesis-related guidance, and James Wheeler – my colleague, roommate, and friend – for his unqualified assistance. Without continued support and funding from the Anthropology Department, I could not have completed this thesis. Thank you, Dr. Michael Harris and the Morrow Research Fellowship in Anthropology Committee, for providing me with the ability to travel to collect my data. I also extend deep gratitude to the museum collections staffs. Lyman Jellema of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Candace McCaffery of the University of iv Florida, and Darrin Lunde of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, thank you for your assistance and camaraderie during my data collection. I am very thankful for the generosity of new and old friends. Carl and Dorothy, thank you for welcoming me into your home during my thesis travels. My stay in Cleveland could not have been more enjoyable, and I look forward to visiting again. Rick, I couldn‟t have navigated D.C. without your help. It was great to see you again, and I‟m very grateful that you shared your home with me. Thank you, Dr. Michael Noonan of Canisius College, for your continued mentorship, as I move through the ranks of academia. The love and support I receive from my family and friends are unparalleled. Despite the geographic distance, my family, immediate and extended, never fails to provide encouragement. Mom, Dad, Gramma and Grampa, thank you for your endless patience and love, especially when it was most required. Your support was absolutely necessary. Gladys, your love and encouragement was vital. You are amazing. Thank you. Without you and your family, I would not have completed this thesis. I am forever grateful and incredibly fortunate to have such a wonderful and supportive network of friends and family. Thank you all. v Abstract Author: Thomas A. DiVito II Title: The Role of Ontogeny for Reconstructing Hominid Phylogeny Institution: Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. Robert C. McCarthy Degree: Master of Arts Year: 2011 Phylogenies constructed from skeletal data often contradict those built from genetic data. This study evaluates the phylogenetic utility of adult male, female, and juvenile hominoid cranial bones. First, I used geometric morphometric methods to compare the cranial bone shapes of seven primate genera (Gorilla, Homo, Hylobates, Macaca, Nomascus, Pan, and Pongo). I then coded these shapes as continuous characters and constructed cladograms via parsimony analysis for the adult male, female, and juvenile character matrices. Finally, I evaluated the similarity of these cladograms to one another and to the genetic phylogeny using topological distance software. Cladograms did not differ from one another or the genetic phylogeny less than comparisons of randomly generated trees. These results suggest that cranial shapes are unlikely to provide accurate phylogenetic information, and agree with other analyses of skeletal data that fail to recover the molecular phylogeny (Collard & Wood, 2000, 2001; Springer et al., 2007). vi Dedication I am eternally grateful for the love and support of my family. Mom, Dad, Gramma, Grampa, and especially Gladys, this thesis is for you. Cladistic Analysis of Juvenile and Adult Hominoid Cranial Shape Variables List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Historical Background and Overview ................................................................................. 4 Phylogenetic Systematics ................................................................................................ 5 Character Coding............................................................................................................. 6 Molecular Phylogenetics and Fossil Taxa ....................................................................... 8 Geometric Morphometrics .............................................................................................. 9 Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 13 Materials and Methods ...................................................................................................... 14 Specimens...................................................................................................................... 14 Landmarks ..................................................................................................................... 16 Error Testing ................................................................................................................. 23 Character Identification ................................................................................................. 24 Cladistic Analysis .......................................................................................................... 26 Cladogram Comparison Tests ....................................................................................... 26 vii Results ............................................................................................................................... 31 Parsimony Analysis ....................................................................................................... 31 Topological Distance Tests ........................................................................................... 34 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 35 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 39 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 40 Appendix A: Specimens ................................................................................................ 41 Appendix B: Cranial Bone Landmark Subsets ............................................................. 45 Appendix C: Data Matrices ........................................................................................... 51 References ..................................................................................................................... 56 viii List of Tables Table 1. Pairwise comparisons of the four cladograms. ................................................... 13 Table 2. Specimens by genus and class. ........................................................................... 15 Table 3. Landmark descriptions. ....................................................................................... 17 Table 4. Procrustes ANOVA results. ................................................................................ 24 Table 5. D‟Agostino Omnibus test statistics..................................................................... 30 Table 6. Frequency distribution for guided randomization analysis. ................................ 30 Table 7. Frequency distribution for random randomization analysis. .............................. 30 Table 8. Topological distances of pairwise cladogram comparisons. .............................. 34 ix List of Figures Figure 1. Lateral view of cranial landmark locations.