Function, Phylogeny, and Fossils pp 79-100 | Cite as
Functional and Phylogenetic Features of the Forelimb in Miocene Hominoids
Abstract
The forelimb is the most versatile part of the locomotor system in primates. As such, its functional morphology varies widely among taxa with different locomotor specializations. It is therefore an attractive region for investigations of phylogeny, function, and their interrelationships. In addition, forelimb elements are relatively abundant in the catarrhine fossil record. This is especially true for the humerus, which will form the focus of what follows. In this discussion, only major references are cited: more complete bibliographies are included in Rose (1993a, 1994). Characters identified in the text by parenthesized letters, e.g., (a) or (a′), are listed in Table I, and their states in the taxa discussed are listed in Table II. Characters identified with a prime indicate the derived state. Many of the humeral characters are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Keywords
Radial Head Humeral Shaft Medial Epicondyle Distal Humerus Ulnar DeviationPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Aiello, L. C. 1981. Locomotion in the Miocene Hominoidea. In: C. B. Stringer (ed.), Aspects of Human Evolution, pp. 63–97. Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
- Andrews, P., and Simons, E. L. 1977. A new Miocene gibbon-like genus, Dendropithecus (Hominoidea, Primates) with distinctive postcranial adaptations: Its significance to origin of Hylobatidae. Folia Primatol. 28: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Andrews, P., and Walker, A. 1976. The primate and other fauna from Fort Ternan, Kenya. In: G. L. Isaac and E. McCown (eds.), Human Origins, pp. 279–304.Google Scholar
- Benjamin, Menlo Park, CA. Beard, K. C., Teaford, M. F., and Walker, A. 1986. New wrist bones of Proconsul africanus and P. nyanzae from Rusinga Island, Kenya. Folia Primatol. 47: 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Begun, D. R. 1987. A Review of the Genus Dryopithecus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Begun, D. R. 1988. Catarrhine phalanges from the Late Miocene (Vallesian) of Rudabânya, Hungary. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 413–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Begun, D. R. 1992. Phyletic diversity and locomotion in primitive European hominids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Begun, D. R. 1993. New catarrhine phalanges from Rudabânya (northeastern Hungary) and the problem of parallelism and convergence in hominoid postcranial morphology. J. Hum. Evol. 24: 373–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Begun, D. R., Teaford, M. F., and Walker, A. 1993. Comparative and functional anatomy of Proconsul phalanges from the Kasawanga Primate Site, Rusinga Island, Kenya./ Hum. Evol. 25: 89–165.Google Scholar
- Clark, W. E. L., and Leakey, L. S. B. 1951. The Miocene Hominoidea of East Africa. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. Fossil Mamm. Afr. 1: 1–117.Google Scholar
- Clark, W. E. L., and Thomas, D. P. 1951. Associated jaws and limb bones of Limnopithecus macinnesi. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. Fossil Mamm. Afr. 3: 1–27.Google Scholar
- Conroy, G. C. 1976. Primate postcranial remains from the Oligocene of Egypt. Contrib. Primatol. 8: 1–134.Google Scholar
- Ehrensberg, K. 1938. Austriacopithecus, ein neuer menschen-affenartiger Primate aus dem Miozan von Klein-Hadersdorf bei Poysdorf in Niederösterreich (Nider-Donau). Sitzungsber. Oesterr. Akad. Wiss. Math. Naturwiss. Kl. 147: 71–110.Google Scholar
- Feldsman, M. R. 1982. Morphometric analysis of the distal humerus of the some Cenzoic catarrhines: The late divergence hypothesis revisited. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 59: 173–195.Google Scholar
- Ferembach, D. 1958. Les limnopithèques du Kenya. Ann. Paleontol. 44: 149–249.Google Scholar
- 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
- Fleagle, J. G. 1986. The fossil record of early catarrhine evolution. In: B. Wood, L. Martin, and P. Andrews (eds.), Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution, pp. 130–149. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
- Fleagle, J. G., and Simons, E. L. 1982. The humerus of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis: A primitive anthropoid. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 59: 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gebo, D. L., Teaford, M. F., Walker, A., Larson, S. G., Jungers, W. L., and Fleagle, J. G. 1988. A hominoid proximal humerus from the Early Miocene of Rusinga Island, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harrison, T. 1982. Small-Bodied Apes from the Miocene of East Africa. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
- Harrison, T. 1986. A reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais. J. Hum. Evol. 15: 541–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harrison, T. 1991. The implications of Oreopithecus bambolii for the origins of bipedalism. In: Y. Coppens and B. Senut (eds.), Origine(s) de la Bipédie chez les Hominidés. Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie, pp. 235–244. Editions du CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
- Kelley, J. 1995. A functional interpretive framework for the early hominoid postcranium. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 20: 205.Google Scholar
- Kretzoi, M. 1975. New ramapithecines and Pliopithecus from the lower Pliocene of Rudabânya in north-eastern Hungary. Nature 257: 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Larson, S. G. 1988. Subscapularis function in gibbons and chimpanzees: Implications for interpretation of humeral head torsion in hominoids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 76: 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leakey, R. E., Leakey, M. G., and Walker, A. C. 1988a. Morphology of Turkanapithecus kalakolensis from Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 76: 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leakey, R. E., Leakey, M. G., and Walker, A. C. 1988b. Morphology of Afropithecus turkanensis from Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 76: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lin, Y., Wang, S., Gao, Z., and Zhang, L. 1987. The first discovery of the radius of Sivapithecus lufengensis in China. Geol. Rev. 33: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCrossin, M. L. 1994. The Phylogenetic Relationships, Adaptations, and Ecology of Kenyapithecus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- McHenry, H. M., and Corruccini, R. S. 1975. Distal humerus in hominoid evolution. Folia Primatol. 23: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meldrum, D. J., and Pan, Y. 1988. Manual proximal phalanx of Laccopithecus robustus from the Latest Miocene site of Lufeng. J. Hum. Evol. 18: 719–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morbeck, M. E. 1983. Miocene hominoid discoveries from Rudabânya: Implications from the postcranial skeleton. In: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 369–404. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Napier, J. R., and Davis, P. R. 1959. The forelimb skeleton and associated remains of Proconsul africanus. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. Fossil Mamm. Afr. 16: 1–69.Google Scholar
- Nengo, I. O., and Rae, T. C. 1992. New hominoid fossils from the early Miocene site of Songhor, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 23: 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pilbeam, D. R., and Simons, E. L. 1971. Humerus of Dryopithecus from Saint Gaudens, France. Nature 229: 406–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pilbeam, D. R., Rose, M. D., Badgley, C., and Lipschutz, B. 1980. Miocene hominoids from Pakistan. Postilla 181: 1–94.Google Scholar
- Pilbeam, D. R., Rose, M. D., Barry, J. C., and Shah, S. M. I. 1990. New Sivaphithecus humeri from the Chinji Formation of Pakistan and the relationship of Sivapithecus and Pongo. Nature 348: 237–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robertson, M. 1985. A comparison of pronation-supination mobility in Proconsul and Pliopithecus vindobonensis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 66: 219.Google Scholar
- 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
- Rose, M. D. 1984. Hominoid specimens from the Middle Miocene Chinji Formation, Pakistan. J. Hum. Evol. 13: 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1986. Further hominoid postcranial specimens from the Late Miocene Nagri Formation of Pakistan. J. Hum. Evol. 15: 333–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1988. Another look at the anthropoid elbow. J. Hum. Evol. 17:193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1989. New postcranial specimens of catarrhines from the middle Miocene Chinji Formation, Pakistan: Descriptions and a discussion of proximal humeral functional morphology in anthropoids. J. Hum. Evol. 18: 131–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1993a. Locomotor anatomy of Miocene hominoids. In: D. Gebo (ed.), Postcranial Adaptation in Nonhuman Primates, pp. 252–272. Northern Illinois University Press, De Kalb.Google Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1993b. Functional anatomy of the primate elbow and forearm. In: D. Gebo (ed.), Postcranial Adaptation in Nonhuman Primates, pp. 70–95. Northern Illinois University Press, De Kalb.Google Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1994. Quadrupedalism in Miocene hominoids. J. Hum. Evol. 26: 387–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, M. D. 1996. Functional morphological similarities in the locomotor skeleton of Miocene catarrhines and platyrrhine monkeys. Folic Primatol. 66: 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, M. D., Leakey, M. G., Leakey, R. E. F., and Walker, A. C. 1992. Postcranial specimens of Simiolus enjiessi and other primitive catarrhines from the early Miocene of Lake Turkana, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 22: 171–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sarmiento, E. E. 1985. Functional Differences in the Skeleton of Wild and Captive Orang-Utans and their Adaptive Significance. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
- 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
- Sarmiento, E. E. 1988. Anatomy of the hominoid wrist joint: Its evolutionary and functional implications. Int. J. Primatol. 9: 281–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schultz, A. H. 1960. Einege Beobachtungen und Masse am Skelett von Oreopithecus im vergleich mit anderem catarrhinen Primaten. Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 50: 136–149.Google Scholar
- Senut, B. 1989. Le Coude Chez les Primates Hominoides: Anatomie, Fonction, Taxonomie et Evolution. Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie, CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
- Simons, E. L., and Fleagle, J. 1973. The history of extinct gibbon-like primates. In: D. M. Rumbaugh (ed.), Gibbon and Siamang, Vol. 2, pp. 167–218. Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
- Spoor, C. F., Sondaar, P. Y., and Hussain, S. T. 1992. A hominoid hamate and first metacarpal from the Late Miocene Nagri Formation of Pakistan. J. Hum. Evol. 21: 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Straus, W. L., Jr. 1963. The classification of Oreopithecus. In: S. L. Washburn (ed.), Classification and Human Evolution, pp. 146–177. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Walker, A. C., and Pickford, M. 1983. New postcranial fossils of P. africanus and P. nyanzae. In: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 325–351. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ward, C. V., Walker, A., and Teaford, M. F. 1991. Proconsul did not have a tail. J. Hum. Evol. 21: 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wu, R., Xu, Q., and Lu, Q. 1986. Relationship between Lufeng Sivapithecus and Ramapithecus and their phylogenetic position. Acta Anthropol. Sin. 5: 1–30.Google Scholar
- Xiao, M. 1981. Discovery of fossil hominoid scapula at Lufeng, Yunnan. In: Yunnan Provincial Museum (ed.), Collected Papers of the 30th Anniversary of the Yunnan Provincial Museum, pp. 41–44. Yunnan Provincial Museum, Yunnan.Google Scholar
- Zapfe, H. 1960. Die Primatenfunde aus der Miozïanen spaltenfüllung von Neudorf an der March (Devinska Nova Ves) Tschechoslowakei. Schweiz. Palaeontol. Abh. 78: 1–293.Google Scholar