Advertisement

Functional Anatomy and Phyletic Implications of the Hominoid Trunk and Hindlimb

  • Carol V. Ward
Part of the Advances in Primatology book series (AIPR)

Abstract

Traditional hominid phylogenies are based on craniodental and mandibular characteristics primarily because these elements comprise the bulk of the hominoid fossil record. Few postcranial elements are known for most fossil hominoids, complicating intertaxic comparisons. Another reason postcrania tend to be neglected in phylogenetic studies is the assumption that they are more responsive to selective and ontogenetic pressures than skulls and teeth, and thereby are more likely to reflect homoplasy and obscure phylogenetic conclusions. Explanations of homoplasy are generally invoked when post-cranial analyses do not support phyletic schemes constructed using cranio-dental characters, e.g., in the cases of Sivapithecus (Pilbeam et al., 1990) and Oreopithecus (Harrison, 1986; Sarmiento, 1987).

Keywords

Talocrural Joint Miocene Hominoid Hominoid Evolution Fossil Hominoid Extant Hominoid 
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. Allbrook, D., and Bishop, W. W. 1963. New fossil hominoid material from Uganda. Nature 197: 1187–1190.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. 1978. A revision of the Miocene Hominoidea of east Africa. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist Geol. 30: 85–224.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, P. 1992. Evolution and environment in the Hominoidea. Nature 360: 641–646.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, P., and Cronin, J. 1982. The relationships of Sivapithecus and Ramapithecus and the evolution of the orangutan. Nature 297: 541–546.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, P., and Martin, L. 1987. The phyletic position of the Ad Dabtiyah hominoid. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Geol. 41: 383–393.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, P., and Martin, L. 1991. Hominoid dietary evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 334: 199–209.Google Scholar
  7. Begun, D. R. 1992a. Phyletic diversity and locomotion in primitive European hominids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 311–340.Google Scholar
  8. Begun, D. R. 1992b. Miocene fossil hominids and the chimp-human clade. Science 257: 19291933.Google Scholar
  9. Begun, D. R. 1993. Phyletic affinities and functional convergence in European Miocene hominoids and living hominids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 16: 54.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Benton, R. 1969. Morphological evidence for adaptations within the epaxial region of the primates. In H. Vagtborg (ed.), The Baboon in Medical Research, pp. 10-20. University of Texas Press, Houston.Google Scholar
  12. Benton, R. S. 1974. Structural patterns in the Pongidae and Cercopithecidae. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 18: 65–88.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, B., and Ward, S. C. 1988. Basicranial and facial topography in Pongo and Sivapithecus. In: J. H. Schwartz (ed.), Orang-utan Biology, pp. 247–260. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Conroy, G. C. 1976. Primate postcranial remains from the Oligocene of Egypt. Contrib. Primatol. 8: 1–134.Google Scholar
  16. Conroy, G. C., and Fleagle, J. G. 1972. Locomotor behavior in living and fossil pongids. Nature 237: 103–104.Google Scholar
  17. Conroy, G. C., and Rose, M. D. 1983. Evolution of the primate foot from the earliest primates to the Miocene hominoids. Foot Ankle 3: 342–364.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, F. G., and Krahl, V. E. 1945. The torsion of the humerus: A phylogenetic study from fish to man. Am. J. Anat. 76: 303–337.Google Scholar
  19. Fleagle, J. G. 1975. Ape limb bone from the Oligocene of Egypt. Science 189: 135–137.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Fleagle, J. G. 1988. Primate Adaptation and Evolution. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fleagle, J. G., and Simons, E. L. 1982. The humerus of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis: A primitive anthropoid. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 59: 175–193.Google Scholar
  23. Ford, S. M. 1988. Postcranial adaptations of the earliest platyrrhine. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 155–192.Google Scholar
  24. Gebo, D, L. 1992. Plantigrady and foot adaptation in African apes: Implications for hominid origins. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 89: 29–58.Google Scholar
  25. Gebo, D. L. 1993. Postcranial anatomy and locomotor adaptation in early African anthropoids. In: D. Gebo (ed.), Postcranial Adaptation in Nonhuman Primates, pp. 220–234, Northern Illinois University Press, De Kalb.Google Scholar
  26. Gebo, D. L., and Simons, E. L. 1987. Morphology and locomotor adaptation of the foot in early Oligocene anthropoids. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 74: 83–101.Google Scholar
  27. Gervais, P. 1872. Sur singe fossile, d’espece non encore décrite, qui a été découvert au Monte Bamboli. C. R. Acad. Sci. 74: 1217–1223.Google Scholar
  28. Greenfield, L. O. 1979. On the adaptive pattern of “Ramapithecus.” Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 50: 527548.Google Scholar
  29. Harrison, T. 1986. A reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais. J. Hum. Evol. 15: 541–583.Google Scholar
  30. Harrison, T. 1987. The phylogenetic relationships of the early catarrhine primates: A review of the current evidence. J. Hum. Evol. 16: 41–80.Google Scholar
  31. Harrison, T. 1989. New postcranial specimens of Victoriapithecus from the middle Miocene of Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 18: 537–557.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, T. 1992. A reassessment of the taxonomic and phylogenetic affinities of the fossil catarrhines from Fort Ternan, Kenya. Primates 33 (4): 501–522.Google Scholar
  33. Harrison, T. 1993. Cladistic concepts and the species problem in hominoid evolution. In: W. H. Kimbel and L. B. Martin (eds.), Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution, pp. 345–371. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Hürzeler, J. 1949. Neubieschreibung von Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais. Schweiz. Palaeontol. Abh. 66: 1–20.Google Scholar
  35. Hürzeler, J. 1958. Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais: A preliminary report. Verh. Naturforsch. Ges. Basel 69: 1–48.Google Scholar
  36. Hürzeler, J. 1960. The significance of Oreopithecus in the genealogy of man. Triangle 4: 164–174.Google Scholar
  37. Hürzeler, J. 1968. Questions et réflections sur l’histoire des anthropomorphes. Ann. Paleontol. 54 (2): 13–41.Google Scholar
  38. Kay, R. F. 1977. Diets of early Miocene African hominoids. Nature 268: 628–630.Google Scholar
  39. Kelley, J. 1986. Species recognition and sexual dimorphism in Proconsul and Rangwapithecus. J. Hum. Evol. 15: 461–495.Google Scholar
  40. Kelley, J. 1988. A new large species of Sivapithecus from the Siwaliks of Pakistan. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 305–324.Google Scholar
  41. Kelley, J., and Pilbeam, D. 1986. The dryopithecines: Taxonomy, comparative anatomy and phylogeny of Miocene large hominoids. In: D. R. Swindler and J. Irwin (eds.), Comparative Primate Biology, vol. 1: Systematics, Evolution and Anatomy, pp. 361–411.Google Scholar
  42. Liss, New York. Langdon, J. H. 1986. Functional morphology of the Miocene hominoid foot. Contrib. Primatol. 22: 1–255.Google Scholar
  43. Lartet, E. 1856. Note sure un grand singe fossile qui se rattache au groupe des singes superieurs. C. R. Acad. Sci. 43: 219–223.Google Scholar
  44. Latimer, B., and Lovejoy, C. O. 1989. The calcaneus of Australopithecus afarensis and its implications for the evolution of bipedality. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78: 369–386.Google Scholar
  45. Latimer, B., Ohman, J. C., and Lovejoy, C. O. 1987. Talocrural joint in African hominoids: Implications for Australopithecus afarensis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 74: 155–175.Google Scholar
  46. Leakey, L. S. B. 1963. East African fossil Hominoidea and the classification within this super-family. In: S. L. Washburn (ed.), Classification and Human Evolution, pp. 32–49. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  47. Leakey, R. E., and Leakey, M. G. 1986. A new Miocene hominoid from Kenya. Nature 324: 143145.Google Scholar
  48. Leakey, R. E., Leakey, M. G., and Walker, A. 1988. Morphology of Afropithecus turkanensis from Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 76: 289–307.Google Scholar
  49. Lovejoy, C. O. 1975. Biomechanical perspectives on the lower limb of early hominids. In: R. H. Tuttle (ed.), Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution, pp. 291–326. Mouton, Paris. Lovejoy, C. O. 1988. Evolution of human walking. Sci. Am. 259: 118–175.Google Scholar
  50. Lovejoy, C. O. 1990. Review of Possible Animal Models for Kinematic/Utility Testing of the Pfizer Anterior Cruciate Ligament Prosthesis (PPCLP). Unpublished report written for Howmedica Division, Pfizer Pharmaceutical Corp.Google Scholar
  51. Lovejoy, C. O., Heiple, K. G., and Burstein, A. H. 1973. The gait of Australopithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 38: 757–780.Google Scholar
  52. MacClatchy, L. M. 1995. A Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Functional Morphology of the Primate Hip Joint. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  53. MacClatchy, L. M., Gebo, D. L., and Pilbeam, D. R. 1995. New primate fossils from the Lower Miocene of northeast Uganda. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 20: 139.Google Scholar
  54. McCrossin, M. L. 1994a. The Phylogenetic Relationships, Adaptations, and Ecology of Kenyapithecus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  55. McCrossin, M. L. 1994b. Semi-terrestrial adaptations of Kenyapithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 18: 142–143.Google Scholar
  56. McCrossin, M. L., and Benefit, B. R. 1992. Comparative assessment of the ischial morphology of Victoriapithecus macinnesi. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 277–290.Google Scholar
  57. McCrossin, M. L., and Benefit, B. R. 1993. Recently discovered Kenyapithecus mandible and its implications for great ape and human origins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90: 1962–1966.Google Scholar
  58. McCrossin, M. L., and Benefit, B. R. 1994. Maboko Island and the evolutionary history of Old World monkeys and apes. In: R. S. Corruccini and R. L. Ciochon (eds.), Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell, pp. 95–124. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  59. McHenry, H. M., and Corruccini, R. S. 1976. Affinities of Tertiary hominoid femora. Folio Primatol. 26: 136–150.Google Scholar
  60. Maddison and Maddison. 1992. MacClade 3.0: Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  61. Marks, J. 1992. Beads and string: The genome in evolutionary theory. In: E. J. Devor (ed.), Molecular Applications in Biological Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  62. Marks, J. 1993. Hominoid heterochromatin: Terminal C-bands as a complex genetic trait linking chimpanzee and gorilla. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 90: 237–246.Google Scholar
  63. Martin, L. 1981. New specimens of Proconsul from Koru, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 10: 139–150.Google Scholar
  64. Martin, L. 1986. Relationships among extant and extinct great apes and humans. In: B. Wood, L.Google Scholar
  65. Martin, and P. Andrews (eds.), Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution,pp. 161–187. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, E. R., and Gunnell, G. F. 1992. Femoral morphology of Smilodectes mcgrewi. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 14: 123–124.Google Scholar
  67. Morbeck, M. E. 1983. Miocene hominoid discoveries from Rudabànya: implications from the postcranial skeleton. In R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 369–404.Google Scholar
  68. Moyà-Solà, S., and Köhler, M. 1993. Recent discoveries of Dryopithecus shed new light on evolution of great apes. Nature 365: 543–545.Google Scholar
  69. Napier, J. 1961. Prehensility and opposability in the hands of primates. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 134: 647–657.Google Scholar
  70. Napier, J. 1962. Fossil hand bones form Olduvai Gorge. Nature 196: 409–411.Google Scholar
  71. Napier, J. 1993. Hands. Revised by R. H. Tuttle. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Pilbeam, D. R. 1969. Tertiary Pongidae of east Africa: Evolutionary relationships and taxonomy. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 31: 1–185.Google Scholar
  72. Pilbeam, D. 1982. New hominoid skull material from the Miocene of Pakistan. Nature 295: 232–234.Google Scholar
  73. Pilbeam, D., Rose, M. D., Badgley, C., and Lipschutz, B. 1980. Miocene hominoids from Pakistan. Postilla 181: 1–94.Google Scholar
  74. Pilbeam, D., Rose, M. D., Barry, J. C., and Shah, S. M. I. 1990. New Sivapithecus humeri fromGoogle Scholar
  75. Pakistan and the relationship of Sivapithecus and Pongo. Nature 348:237–239.Google Scholar
  76. Preuschoft, H. 1973. Body posture and locomotion in some east African Miocene Dryopithecinae. In: M. H. Day (ed.), Human Evolution (Symposium of the Society for the Study of Human Biology, Vol. XI), pp. 13–46. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  77. Rafferty, K. L., Walker, A., Ruff, C. B., Rose, M. D., and Andrews, P. J. 1995. Postcranial estimates of body weight in Proconsul, with a note on a distal tibia of P. major from Napak, Uganda. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 97: 391–402.Google Scholar
  78. Rose, M. D. 1974. Ischial tuberosities and ischial callosities. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 40: 375–384.Google Scholar
  79. 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.Google Scholar
  80. Rose, M. D. 1986. Further hominoid postcranial specimens from the late Miocene Nagri Formation of Pakistan. J. Hum. Evol. 15: 333–367.Google Scholar
  81. Rose, M. D. 1988. Another look at the anthropoid elbow. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 193–224.Google Scholar
  82. Rose, M. D. 1993. Locomotor anatomy of Miocene hominoids. In: D. Gebo (ed.), Postcranial Adaptation in Nonhuman Primates, pp. 252–272.Google Scholar
  83. Northern Illinois University Press, De Kalb. Rose, M. D. 1994. Quadrupedalism in some Miocene catarrhines. J. Hum. Evol. 26: 387–411.Google Scholar
  84. Rose, M. D., and Walker, A. 1968. Fossil hominoid vertebra from the Miocene of Uganda. Nature 217: 980–981.Google Scholar
  85. Rose, M. D., Ishida, H., and Nakano, Y. Kenyapithecus postcranial specimens from Nachola, Kenya. (in preparation).Google Scholar
  86. Rosenberger, A. L., and Delson, E. 1985. The dentition of Oreopithecus bambolii: Systematic and paleobiological implications. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 66: 222–223.Google Scholar
  87. Ruvulo, M., Disotell, T. R., Allard, M. W., Brown, W. M., and Honeycutt, R. L. 1991. Resolution of the African hominoid trichotomy by use of a mitochondrial gene sequence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 1570–1574.Google Scholar
  88. 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. J. Hum. Evol. 26: 203–238.Google Scholar
  89. Sarmiento, E. E. 1983. The significance of the heel process in anthropoids. Int. J. Primatol. 4: 127152.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. Schultz, A. H. 1961. Vertebral column and thorax. Primatologia 4: 1–66.Google Scholar
  93. Schultz, A. H. 1963. Relations between the lengths of the main parts of the foot skeleton in primates. Folio Primatol. 1: 150–171.Google Scholar
  94. Schwartz, J. H. 1984. Hominoid evolution: A review and a reassessment. Curr. Anthropol. 25: 655672.Google Scholar
  95. Sibley, C. G., and Ahlquist, J. E. 1987. DNA hybridisation evidence of hominoid phylogeny. J. Mol. Evol. 26: 99–121.Google Scholar
  96. Sibley, C. G., Comstock, J. Q., and Ahlquist, J. E. 1990. DNA hybridization evidence for hominoid phylogeny: A re-analysis of the data. J. Mol. Evol. 30: 202–236.Google Scholar
  97. Smouse, P. E., and Li, W-H. 1987. Likelihood analysis of mitochondrial restriction-cleavage patterns for the human-chimpanzee-gorilla trichotomy. Evolution 41: 1162–1176.Google Scholar
  98. Strasser, E. 1992. Hindlimb proportions, allometry, and biomechanics in Old World monkeys (Primates, Cercopithecidae). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 187–213.Google Scholar
  99. Straus, W. L. 1961. Primate taxonomy and Oreopithecus. Science 133: 760–761.Google Scholar
  100. Straus, W. L. 1963. The classification of Oreopithecus. In: S. L. Washburn (ed.), Classification and Human Evolution, pp. 146–177. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
  101. Swofford, D. 1993. PAUP manual.Google Scholar
  102. Szalay, F. S., and Delson, E. 1979. Evolutionary History of the Primates. Academic Press, New York. Szalay, F. S., and Langdon, J. H. 1985. Evolutionary morphology of the foot in Oreopithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 66: 237.Google Scholar
  103. Teaford, M. F., and Walker, A. 1993. Proconsul: Function and phylogeny. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 16: 194.Google Scholar
  104. Templeton, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37: 22 1224.Google Scholar
  105. Walker, A., and Pickford, M. 1983. New postcranial fossils of Proconsul africanus and Proconsul nyanzae. In: R. Ciochon and R. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 325–351. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  106. Walker, A., and Teaford, M. F. 1988. The Kaswanga Primate Site: An Early Miocene hominoid site on Rusinga Island, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 17: 539–544.Google Scholar
  107. Walker, A., and Teaford, M. F. 1989. The hunt for Proconsul. Sci. Am. 260: 76–82.Google Scholar
  108. Ward, C. V. 1991. The Functional Anatomy of the Lower Back and Pelvis of the Miocene Hominoid Proconsul nyanzae from Mfangano Island, Kenya. Ph.D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  109. Ward, C. V. 1992. Hip joints of Proconsul nyanzae and P. africanus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 14: 171.Google Scholar
  110. Ward, C. V. 1993. Torso morphology and locomotion in catarrhines: Implications for the positional behavior of Proconsul nyanzae. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 92: 291–328.Google Scholar
  111. Ward, C. V., Walker, A., Teaford, M. F., and Odhiambo, I. 1989. Proconsul nyanzae innominate from the early Miocene of Mfangano Island, Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78: 319–320.Google Scholar
  112. Ward, C. V., Walker, A., and Teaford, M. F. 1991. Proconsul did not have a tail. J. Hum. Evol. 21: 215–220.Google Scholar
  113. Ward, C. V., Walker, A., Teaford, M. F., and Odhiambo, I. 1993. A partial skeleton of Proconsul nyanzae from Mfangano Island, Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 90: 77–111.Google Scholar
  114. Ward, C. V., Ruff, C. B., Walker, A., Teaford, M. F., Rose, M. D., and Nengo, I. O. 1995. Functional morphology of Proconsul patellas from Rusinga Island, Kenya, with implications for other Miocene—Pliocene catarrhines. J. Hum. Evol. 29: 1–19.Google Scholar
  115. Ward, S. C., and Kimbel, W. H. 1983. Subnasal alveolar morphology and the systematic position of Sivapithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 61: 157–151.Google Scholar
  116. 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.Google Scholar
  117. Williams, B. A., and Kay, R. F. 1995. The taxon Anthropoidea and the crown clade concept. Evol. Anthropol. 3: 188–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol V. Ward
    • 1
  1. 1.Anthropology and Pathology and Anatomical SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations