Postcranial Anatomy and the Origin of the Anthropoidea

  • Marian Dagosto
  • Daniel L. Gebo
Part of the Advances in Primatology book series (AIPR)

Abstract

One of the major unresolved problems in the phylogeny of primate higher taxa is the origin and relationships of Anthropoidea. Several hypotheses are currently in contention, two of which entail the idea of descent from the Eocene euprimate families Adapidae and Omomyidae. The idea that omo-myids or tarsiers are the stem group for anthropoids is based primarily on characters of the narial region and placentation shared by Tarsius (a presumed descendant of omomyids) and anthropoids (Hill, 1919; Luckett, 1975; Pocock, 1918); features of middle ear construction and arterial circulation (Cartmill and Kay, 1978; Cartmill et al., 1981; Szalay, 1975); and the relationship of the interorbital septum to the nasal fossa (Cartmill, 1972; Cave, 19(57) shared by tarsiers, omomyids, and anthropoids. This hypothesis will be abbreviated as OA. The evidence for a phyletic relationship between adapids and anthropoids (AA) rests primarily on features of the dentition shared by adapids and anthropoids (Gingerich, 1980; Rasmussen and Simons, 1988; Simons and Rasmussen, 1989) and shared features of the basicranial region of Mahgarita and anthropoids (Rasmussen, 1990).

Keywords

Distal Tibia Direct Descent Medial Malleolus Articular Facet Nasal Fossa 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Harnett, C. II., and Napier, J. R. 1953. The rotatory ability of the fibula in eutherian mammals.J. Anat. 87:11–21.Google Scholar
  2. Beard, K. C. 1991. Vertical postures and climbing in the morphotype of primatomorpha: Implications for locomotor evolution in primate history. In: Y. Coppens and B. Senut (eds), Origine(s) de la Bipedie chez les Hominides (Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie), pp. 79–87. CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  3. Beard, K. C., Dagosto, M., Gebo, D. L., and Godinot, M. 1988. Interrelationships among primate higher taxa. Nature 331:712–714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beard, K. C., and Ciodinot, M. 1988. Carpal anatomy of Smilodectes gracilis (Adapiformes, Notli- arctinae) and its significance for lemuriform phylogeny. J. Hum. Evol. 17:71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beard, K. C., Qi, T., Dawson, M. R., Wang, B., and Li, C. 1994. A diverse new primate fauna from middle Eocene fissure-fillings in southeastern China. Nature 368:604–009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carleton, A. 1941. A comparative study of the inferior tibio-fibular joint. J. Anat. 76:45–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartmill, M. 1972. Arboreal adaptations and the origin of the Order Primates. In: R. Tuttle (ed.), The Functional and evolutionary Biology of Primates, pp. 97–122. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.Google Scholar
  8. Cartmill, M., and Kay, R. F. 1978. Cranio-dental morphology, tarsier affinities and primate suborders. In: D. J. Chivers and K. A. Joysey (eds), Recent Advances in Primatology, pp. 205–213. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Cartmill, M., MacPhee, R. D. F., and Simons, F. L. 1981. Anatomy of the temporal bone in early anthropoids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 56:3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cave, A. J. F. 1967. Observations on the platyrrhine nasal fossa. Am. j. Phys. Anthropol. 26:277–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Covert, H. H. 1985. Adaptations and evolutionary relationships of the Eocene primate family Northarctidae. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.Google Scholar
  12. Covert, H. H. 1988. Ankle and foot morphology of Cantimmckennai: Adaptationsand phylogenetic implications. J. Hum. Evol. 17:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Covert, H. H, and Ilamrick, M. W. 1993. Description of new skeletal remains of the Early Eocene Anaptomorphine Primate Ahsarohius (Omomyidae) and a discussion of its adaptive profile. J. Hum. Evol. 25:351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dagosto, M. 1983. Postcranium of Adapis parisiensis and Leptadapis magnus (Adapiformes, Primates). Fol. Primatol. 41:49–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dagosto, M. 1985. The distal tibia of primates with special reference to the Omomyidae. Int. J. Primatol. 6:45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dagosto, M. 1986. The joints of the tarsus in the Strepsirhine primates. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  17. Dagosto, M. 1988. Implications of postcranial evidence for the origin of Euprimates. J. Hum. Evol. 17:35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dagosto, M. 1990. Models for the origin of the anthropoid postcranium. J. Hum. Evol. 19:121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donoghue, M.; Doyle, j. A., Gauthier, J., and Kluge, A. G. 1989. The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ford, S. M. 1980. A systematic revision of the Platyrrhini based on features of the postcranium. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  22. Ford, S. M. 1986. Systematics of the New World Monkeys. In: D. R. Swindler and J. Erwin (eds.), Comparative Primate Biology, pp. 73–135. Alan R. Fiss, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Ford, S. M. 1988. Postcranial adaptations of the earliest platyrrhine. J. Hum. Evol. 17:155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. F ranzen, J. L. 1987. Fin neuer Primate aus dem Mitteleozän der Grube Messel (Deutschland, S.-FIessen). Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckcnherg 91:151–187.Google Scholar
  25. F ranzen, J. L. 1988. Ein weiterer Primatenfund aus der Grube Messel bei Darmstadt. Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 107:275–289.Google Scholar
  26. Gebo, D. L. 1986. The anatomy of the prosimian foot and its application to the primate fossil record. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.Google Scholar
  27. Gebo, D. L. 1988. Foot morphology and locomotor adaptation in Eocene Primates. Fol. Primatol. 50:3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gebo, D. L., Dagosto, M., and Rose, K. D. 1991. Foot morphology and evolution in early Eocene Cantius Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 86:51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gingerich, P. D. 1975. A new genus of Adapidae (Mammalia, Primates) from the late Eocene of Southern France, and its significance for the origin of higher primates. Contrib. Mus. Pal. Univ. Michigan 24:163–170.Google Scholar
  30. Gingerich, P. D. 1980. Eocene Adapidae, paleobiogeography, and the origin of South American Platyrrhini. In: R. L. Giochon and A. B. Ghiarelli (eds.), Evolutionary Biology of the New World Monkeys and Continental Drift, pp. 123–138. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Godinot, M., and Dagosto, M. 1983. The astragalus of Necrolemur (Primates, Microchoerinae). J. Paleontol. 57:1321–1324.Google Scholar
  32. Godinot, M., and Mahboubi, M. 1992. Earliest known simian primate found in Algeria. Nature 357:324–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gregory, W. K. 1920. On the structure and relations of Notharctus: An American Eocene primate. Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 3:51–243.Google Scholar
  34. Harrison, T. 1987. The phylogenetic relationships of the early catarrhine primates: A review of the current evidence. J. Hum. Evol. 16:41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hecht, M. K., and Edwards, J. L. 1977. The methodology of phylogenetic inference above the species level. In: M. K. Hecht, P. Goody, and B. Hecht (eds.), Major Patterns of Vertebrate Evolution, pp. 3–51. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hershkovitz, P. 1988. The subfossil monkey femur and subfossil monkey tibia of the Antilles: A review. Int. J. Primatol. 9:365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hill, J. P. 1919. The affinities of Tarsius from the embryological aspect. Proc. Zool. Soc. Loud. 1919:476–491.Google Scholar
  38. Koenigswald, W. von. 1979. Ein Lemurenreste aus dem eozänen Ölschiefer der Grube Messel bei Darmstadt. Palaont. Z. 53:63–76.Google Scholar
  39. Luckett, W. P. 1975. Ontogeny of the fetal membranes and placenta: Their bearing on primate phylogeny. In: W. P. Luckett and F. S. Szalay (eds.), Phylogeny of the Primates, pp. 157–182. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neff, N. A. 1986. A rational basis for a priori character weighting. Syst. Zool. 35:110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pocock, R. I. 1918. On the external characters of the lemurs and of Tarsius. Proc. Zool Soc. Lond. 1918:19–53.Google Scholar
  42. Rasmussen, D. T 1990. The phylogenetic position of Mahgarita stevensi: Protoanthropoid or lemuroid. Int. J. Primatol. 11:439–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rasmussen, D. T, and Simons, E. L. 1988. New specimens oiOligopithecus savagei, early Oligocene primate from the Fayum, Egypt. Fol. Primatol. 51:182–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Remane, A. 1956. Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Geest und Portig, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenberger, A. L., and . 3Dagosto, M. 1992. New craniodental and postcranial evidence of fossil tarsiiforms. In: S. Matano, R. H. Tuttle, H. Ishida, and M. Goodman (eds.), Topics in Primatology, Vol. , pp. 37–51. University of Kyoto Press, Kyoto.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenberger, A. L., and Szalay, F. S. 1980. On the tarsiiform origins of the anthropoidea. In: R. L. Ciochan and A. B. Ghiarelli (eds.), Evolutionary Biology of New World Monkeys and Continental Drift, pp. 139–157. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savage, D. E., and Waters, B. T. 1978. A new omomyid primate from the Wasatch formation of southern Wyoming. Fol. Primatol. 30:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlosser, M. 1907. Bietrag zur Osteologie und systematischen Stellung der Gattung Necrolemur, sowie zur Stammesgeschicte der Primaten überhaupt. Neues Jb. Miner. Ceol. Palaont. Mh. 1907:199–226.Google Scholar
  49. Schmid, P. 1979. Evidence of microchoerine evolution from Dielsdorf (Zurich region, Switzerland)—a preliminary report. Fol. Primatol. 31:301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmid, P. 1992. Leaping adaptation in Eocene primates. In: Abstracts of the XIVth Congress of the International Primatological Society, p. 71. International Primatological Society, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  51. Simons, E. L., and Rasmussen, D. T. 1989. Cranial morphology of Aegyptopithecus and Tarsius and the question of the Tarsier—Anthropoidean clade. Am. J. Pkys. Anthropol. 79:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simpson, G. G. 1940. Studies on the earliest primates. Bull. Am. Mils. Nat. Hist. 77:185–212.Google Scholar
  53. Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Swofford, D. L. 1991. PAUP: Phyogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 3.0., Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  55. Szalay, F. S. 1975. Phylogeny of primate higher taxa: The basicranial evidence. In: W. P. Luckett and F. S. Szalay (eds.), Phylogeny of the Primates, pp. 91–125. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Szalay, F. S. 1976. Systematics of the Omomyidae (Tarsiiformes, Primates): Taxonomy, phylogeny, and adaptations. Bull. Am. Mns. Nat. Hist. 156:157–450.Google Scholar
  57. Szalay, F. S. 1977. Ancestors, descendants, sister groups and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 26:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Szalay, F. S., and Bock, W.J. 1991. Evolutionary theory and systematics: relationships between process and patterns. Z. Zool. Syst. Evol. Forsch. 29:1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Szalay, F. S., and Dagosto, M. 1980. Locomotor adaptations as reflected on the humerus of Paleogene primates. Fol. Primatol. 34:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thalmann, U., Haubold, H., and Martin, R. D. 1989. Pronycticebus neglectus— an almost complete adapid primate specimen from the Geiseltal (GDR). Palaeovertebrata 19:115–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marian Dagosto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel L. Gebo
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Cell and Molecular BiologyNorthwestern University Medical SchoolChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of MammalogyAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations