Conclusions
This project used three-dimensional landmark-based morphometric analyses to quantify morphology and variation in the supraorbital region of extant and fossil hominoids. Based on Procrustes superimposition and a battery of statistical approaches, several results were obtained. First, it was demonstrated that supraorbital morphology is robust for distinguishing among extant hominoids. Three character states are exhibited in living apes, separating hominines, Pongo, and Hylobates; Homo is best placed with the African apes in brow morphology, rather than in a separate category. Second, Late Miocene hominoid specimens of Dryopithecus, Sivapithecus, and Graecopithecus were shown to have affinities with particular branches of the hominoid phylogeny. Dryopithecus from Hungary best represents stem hominid morphology; Dryopithecus from Spain is fairly unique, with uncertain affinities. Sivapithecus shows strong affinities to Pongo and the pongine lineage, but displays some similarity to hylobatids. Finally, Graecopithecus clearly groups with the hominines, and shows some affinity to the Gorilla lineage.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Andrews, P., 1992, Evolution and the environment in the Hominoidea, Nature 360:641–646.
Begun, D. R., 1992, Miocene fossil hominoids and the chimp-human clade, Science 257:1929–1933.
Begun, D. R., 1994, Relations among the great apes and humans: New interpretations based on the fossil great ape Dryopithecus, Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 37:11–63.
Begun, D. R. and Moyà Solà , S., 1992, A new partial cranium of Dryopithecus laietanus from Can Llobateres, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. (Suppl.) 14:47.
Begun, D. R., Ward, C. V., and Rose, M. D., 1997, Events in hominoid evolution, in: Function, Phylogeny, and Fossils. Miocene Hominoid Evolution and Adaptations, D. R. Begun, C. V. Ward, and M. D. Rose, eds., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 389–416.
Benefit, B. R. and McCrossin, M. L., 1995, Miocene hominoids and hominid origins, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24:237–256.
Bonis, L., de and Koufos, G. D., 2001, Phylogenetic relationships of Ouranopithecus macedoniensis (Mammalia, Primates, Hominoidea, Hominidae) of the late Miocene deposits of central Macedonia (Greece), in: Phylogeny of the Neogene Hominoid Primates of Eurasia, L. de Bonis, G. D. Koufos, and P. Andrews, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254–268.
Bookstein, F. L., Schäfer, K., Prossinger, H., Fieder, M., Stringer, C. Weber, G. et al., 1999, Comparison of frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis, Anat. Rec. (The New Anatomist) 257:217–224.
Cameron, D. W., 1999, The single species hypothesis and Hispanopithecus fossils from the Vallés Penedés basin, Spain, Z. Morph. Anthropol. 82:159–186.
Collard, M. and Wood, B., 2000, How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? PNAS 97:5003–5006.
Dean, D., 1993, The middle Pleistocene Homo erectus/Homo sapiens transition: New evidence from space curve statistics, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department Anthropology, City University of New York.
Dean, D. and Delson, E., 1992, Second gorilla or third chimp? Nature 359:676–677.
Dean, D., Marcus, L. F., and Bookstein, F. L., 1996, Chi-square test of biological space curve affinities, in: Advances in Morphometrics, NATO ASI Series, L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, and D. E. Slice, eds., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 235–251.
Dryden, I. L. and Mardia, K. V., 1998, Statistical Shape Analysis, JohnWiley, New York.
Harvati, K., 2001, The Neanderthal problem: 3-D geometric morphometric models of cranial shape variation within and among species, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department Anthropology, City University of New York.
Köler, M., Moyà Solà , S., and Alba, D. M., 2001, Eurasian hominoid evolution in the light of recent Dryopithecus findings, in: Phylogeny of the Neogene Hominoid Primates of Eurasia, L., de Bonis, G. D. Koufos, and P. Andrews, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 192–212.
Kordos, L., 1987, Description and reconstruction of the skull of Rudapithecus hungaricus Kretzoi (Mammalia), Ann. Hist. Natur. Mus. Nat. Hung. 79:77–88.
Kordos, L. and Begun, D. R., 2001, A new cranium of Dryopithecus from Rudabáya, Hungary, J. Hum. Evol. 41:689–700.
Marcus, L. F., 1969, Measurement of selection using distance statistics in the prehistoric orang-utan Pongo pygmaeus paleosumatrensis, Evolution 23(2):301–307.
Marshall, J. and Sugardjito, J., 1986, Gibbon systematics, in: Comparative Primate Biology, Volume 1: Systematics, Evolution, and Anatomy, D. R. Swindler and J. Erwin, eds., Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 137–185.
McNulty, K. P., 2003, Geometric morphometric analyses of extant and fossil hominoid craniofacial morphology, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department Anthropology, City University of New York.
Moyà Solà , S. and Köhler, M., 1995, New partial cranium of Dryopithecus lartet, 1863 (Hominoidea, Primates) from the upper Miocene of Can Llobateres, Barcelona, Spain, J. Hum. Evol. 29:101–139.
Neff, N. A. and Marcus, L. F., 1980, A survey of multivariate methods for systematics. Numerical Methods in Systematic Mammalogy Workshop, American Society of Mammalogists.
O’Higgins, P. and Jones, N., 1998, Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation, J. Anat. 193:251–272.
Pilbeam, D. R. and Young, N. M., 2001, Sivapithecus and hominoid evolution: Some brief comments, in: Hominoid Evolution and Climate Change in Europe, Volume 2: Phylogeny of the Neogene Hominoid Primates of Eurasia, L. de Bonis, G. D. Koufos, and P. Andrews, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 349–364.
Rohlf, F. J., 1999, tpsSmall v. 1.17, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York.
Rohlf, F. J. and Marcus, L. F., 1993, A revolution in morphometrics, Trends Evol. Ecol. 8:129–132.
Ruvolo, M., 1994, Molecular evolutionary processes and conflicting gene trees: The hominoid case, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 94:89–114.
Schwartz, J. H., 1987, The Red Ape. Orang-utans and Human Origins, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Slice, D. E., 1998, Morpheus et al.: Software for Morphometric Research, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York.
Slice, D. E., 2001, Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall’s shape space, Syst. Biol. 50:141–149.
Slice, D. E., Bookstein, F. L., Marcus, L. F., and Rohlf, F. J., 1996, Appendix I-a glossary for geometric morphometrics, in: Advances in Morphometrics, L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, and D. E. Slice, eds., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 531–551.
Ward, S. C. and Kimbel, W. H., 1983, Subnasal alveolar morphology and the systematic position of Sivapithecus, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 61:157–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McNulty, K.P. (2005). A Geometric Morphometric Assessment of the Hominoid Supraorbital Region: Affinities of the Eurasian Miocene Hominoids Dryopithecus, Graecopithecus, and Sivapithecus. In: Slice, D.E. (eds) Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27614-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27614-9_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-48697-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-27614-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)