Function and Phylogeny in Miocene Hominoids

  • Carol V. Ward
  • David R. Begun
  • Michael D. Rose
Part of the Advances in Primatology book series (AIPR)

Abstract

The Miocene was the most diverse era in hominoid evolutionary history. Miocene hominoids exhibit a level of taxic, morphological, and biogeographic diversity that far exceeded that of living apes. Over 30 genera of Miocene apes are currently recognized (Begun, 1995a); probably only a small percentage of those that existed. Out of this radiation arose the ancestor of modern apes and humans. The abundance and importance of Miocene hominoid fossils have made them the focus of extensive analysis and reinterpretation over the years.

Keywords

Late Miocene Phylogenetic Hypothesis Functional Anatomy Early Hominid Primitive Character 
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. Andrews, P. 1992. Evolution and environment in the Hominoidea. Nature 360: 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, P., and Groves, C. P. 1976. Gibbons and brachiation. Gibbon and Siamang 4: 167–218.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, P., and Martin, L. 1987. Cladistic relationships of extant and fossil hominoids. J. Hum. Evol. 16: 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begun, D. R. 1992a. Miocene fossil hominids and the chimp—human clade. Science 247: 1929–1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Begun, D. R. 1992b. Phyletic diversity and locomotion in primitive European hominids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begun, D. R. 1993. New catarrhine phalanges in Rudabânya (northeastern Hungary) and the problem of parallelism and convergence in hominoid postcranial morphology. J. Hum. Evol. 24: 373–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Begun, D. R. 1995a. Miocene apes. In: C. R. Ember and M. Ember (eds.), Research Frontiers in Anthropology-Advances in Archeology and Physical Anthropology, pp. 3–30. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Begun, D. R. 1995b. Late Miocene European orang-utans, gorillas, humans, or none of the above? J. Hum. Evol. 29: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Begun, D. R., Teafo;d, M. F., and Walker, A. 1994. Comparative and functional anatomy of Proconsul phalanges from the Kaswanga primate site, Rusinga Island, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 26: 89–165.Google Scholar
  11. Conroy, G. C., Pickford, M., Senut, B., and Van Couvering, J. 1992. Otavipithecus namibiensis, first Miocene hominid from southern Africa. Nature 356: 144–148.Google Scholar
  12. Dean, D., and Delson, E. 1992. Second gorilla or third chimp? Nature 359: 676–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferembach, D. 1958. Les limnopithèques du Kenya. Ann. Paleontol. 44: 149–249.Google Scholar
  14. Fleagle, J. G. 1983. Locomotor adaptations of Oligocene and Miocene hominoids and their phyletic implications. In: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 301–324. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleagle, J. G. 1986. The fossil record of early catarrhine evolution. In: B. A. Wood, L. Martin, and P. Andrews (eds.), Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution, pp. 130–149. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  16. Gebo, D. L. 1989. Locomotor and phylogenetic considerations in anthropoid evolution. Hum. Evol. 18: 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison, T. 1986. A reassessment of the phylogenetic relations of Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais. J. Hum. Evol. 15: 541–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Latimer, B. 1991. Locomotor behavior in Australopithecus afarensis: The issue of arboreality. In: Y. Coppens and B. Senut (eds.), Origine(s) de la Bipédie chez les Hominidés. Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie, pp. 169–176. Editions du CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. McCrossin, M. L. 1994. The Phylogenetic Relationships, Adaptations, and Ecology of Kenyapithecus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, L. 1985. Significance of enamel thickness in hominoid evolution. Nature 314: 260–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moyà-Solà, S., and Köhler, M. 1993. Recent discoveries of Dryopithecus shed new light on evolution of great apes. Nature 365: 543–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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./ Hum. Evol. 29: 101–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson, J. T. 1954. Prehominid dentition and hominid evolution. Evolution 8: 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose, M. D. 1983. Miocene hominoid postcranial morphology: Monkey-like, ape-like, neither, or both? In: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 405–417. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, M. D. 1988. Another look at the anthropoid elbow. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose, M. D. 1991. The process of bipedalization in hominids. In: Y. Coppens and B. Senut (eds.), Origine(s) de la Biédie chez les Hominidés. Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie, pp. 37–48. Editions du CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  27. Sanders, W. J., and Bodenbender, B. E. 1994. Morphometric analysis of lumbar vertebra UMP 67–28: Implications for spinal function and phylogeny of the Miocene Moroto hominoid./ Hum. Evol. 26: 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarmiento, E. E. 1983. The significance of the heel process in anthropoids. Int. J. Primatol. 4: 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarmiento, E. E. 1987. The phylogenetic position of Oreopithecus and its significance in the origin of the Hominoidea. Am. Mus. Novit. 2881: 1–44.Google Scholar
  30. Skelton, R. R., and McHenry, H. M. 1992. Evolutionary relationships among early hominids. J. Hum. Evol. 23: 309–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stern, J. T., and Susman, R. L. 1984. The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 60: 279–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stewart, C. B. 1993. The powers and pitfalls of parsimony. Nature 361: 603–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Susman, R. L., and Stern, J. T. 1991. Locomotor behavior of early hominids: Epistemology and fossil evidence. In: Y. Coppens and B. Senut (eds.), Origine(s) de la Bipédie chez les Hominidés. Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie, pp. 121–132. Editions du CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  34. Tuttle, R. H. 1975. Parallelism, brachiation, and hominoid phylogeny. In: W. P. Luckett and F. S. Szalay (eds.), Phylogeny of the Primates, pp. 447–480. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walker, A., and Teaford, M. F. 1989. The hunt for Proconsul. Sci. Am. 260: 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ward, C. V. 1993. Torso morphology and locomotion in Proconsul nyanzae. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 92: 291–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward, S. C., and Kimbel, W. H. 1983. Subnasal alveolar morphology and the systemic position of Sivapithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 61: 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ward, S. C., and Pilbeam, D. R. 1983. Maxillofacial morphology of Miocene hominoids from Africa and Indo-Pakistan. In: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 211–238. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol V. Ward
    • 1
  • David R. Begun
    • 2
  • Michael D. Rose
    • 3
  1. 1.Anthropology and Pathology and Anatomical SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Injury ScienceUniversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical SchoolNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations