Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T15:02:50.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Putting together the evidence

from Part IV - Last common ancestor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2016

Peter Andrews
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, London
Get access

Summary

The evidence from fossil apes

We have seen in Chapters 7 to 14 that fossil apes span the period from before 20 million years ago in the early Miocene to about 8 million years ago in the late Miocene. In the early Miocene, apes were locally abundant but only known from East Africa. They were arboreal monkey-like primates, quadrupedal (moving on all four legs) with pronograde posture (the body parallel with the ground). One possible exception to this is Morotopithecus, which appears to have had incipient stages of upright posture. Their skulls were lightly built, with narrow noses, broad orbits and a muzzle-like lower face with moderate lower and mid-face prognathism. They had relatively narrow incisors, projecting canines, variable canine/premolar honing, and relatively small molars and premolars with variable enamel thickness. They had narrow chests, limited mobility of the hind legs but greater mobility at their shoulders and elbows, and their hands and feet were adapted for gripping but not for load bearing. Their thumbs were not reduced in length as in great apes, but were slightly shorter relative to the thumb in human hands. The thumb in the Proconsul hand (Chapter 7) had a hinge joint rather than the rotatory joint present in the human hand, but it is likely that they had a precision grip, and with the greater thumb length they probably had greater manipulative abilities than chimpanzees today. The species ranged in size from 10 to 80{ts}kg, the weight of male chimpanzees. They had relatively large brains for their size, and they were associated with tropical forest and deciduous woodland environments, the latter with single tree canopies growing in seasonal (wet−dry) climates. They had primarily arboreal adaptations, but the body size of the larger species would have necessitated some degree of terrestrial locomotion in their woodland habitats, particularly if any distance had to be covered from one part of the woodland to another, as the small branch contact between woodland trees limits movement from one tree to another for all but small mammals. For the most part they had soft fruit diets, although one group at least was more folivorous (leaf-eating Rangwapithecus).

Middle Miocene apes had similar locomotor capabilities to the early Miocene apes. They were all still pronograde arboreal quadrupeds, again with one possible exception (Nacholapithecus may have been suspensory but in a form unlike any other suspensory primate).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alba, D.M., Fortuny, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. 2010. Enamel thickness in the middle Miocene great apes Anoiapithecus, Pierolapithecus andDryopithecus. Proceedings of the Royal Society 277, 2237–2245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almécija, S., Tallman, M., Alba, D.M. et al. 2007. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms 3888.CrossRef
Andrews, P. & Cronin, J. 1982. The relationships of Sivapithecus and Ramapithecus and the evolution of the orang utan. Nature 297, 541–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, P. & Harrison, T. 2005. The last common ancestor of apes and humans. In Lieberman, D.E., Smith, R.J. & Kelley, J., Editors, Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate, and Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam, 103–121. Boston, Brill Academic Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Ashton, E.H. & Oxnard, C. 1964. Locomotor patterns in primates. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 142, 1–28.Google Scholar
Barrett, L., Dunbar, R.I.M. & Lycett, J. 2002. Human Evolutionary Psychology. Basingstoke, Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begun, D.R. 2013. The Miocene hominoid radiations. In Begun, D.R., Editor, A Companion to Paleoanthropology, 398–416. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begun, D.R. & Kivell, T.L. 2011. Knuckle-walking in Sivapithecus? The combined effects of homology and homoplasy with possible implications for pongine dispersals. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 158–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begun, D.R., Nargolwalla, M.C. & Kordos, L. 2012. European Miocene hominids and the origin of the African ape and human clade. Evolutionary Anthropology 21, 10–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaimanee, Y., Suteethorn, V., Jintsakul, P. et al. 2004. A new orang-utan relative from the late Miocene of Thailand. Nature 427, 439–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crast, J., Fragaszy, D., Hayashi, M. & Matsuzawa, T. 2009. Dynamic in-hand movements in adult and young juvenile chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 138, 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, T. 2012. Apes among the tangled branches of human origins. Science 327, 532–534.Google Scholar
Harrison, T. & Andrews, P. 2009. The anatomy and systematic position of the early Miocene proconsulid from Meswa Bridge, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 56, 479–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphrey, L. & Andrews, P. 2008. Metric variation in the postcanine teeth from Paşalar, Turkey. Journal of Human Evolution 54, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hürzeler, J. 1958. Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais: a preliminary report. Verhandlungen der naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Basel 69, 1–47.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. 1993. Taxonomic implications of sexual dimorphism in Lufengpithecus. In Kimbel, W.H. & Martin, L.B., Editors, Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution, 429–458. New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Lukaks, D. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. 2013. The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science 341, 526–530.Google Scholar
Martin, L.B. & Andrews, P. 1993. Species recognition in middle Miocene hominoids. In Kimbel, W.H. & Martin, L.B., Editors, Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution, 393–428. New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Marzke, M.W. 1997. Precision grips, hand morphology and tools. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102, 91–110.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzke, M.W. & Marzke, R.F. 2000. Evolution of the human hand: approaches to acquiring, analyzing and interpreting the anatomical evidence. Journal of Anatomy 197, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNulty, K.P. & Vinyard, C.J. 2015. Morphometry, geometry, function and the future. Anatomical Record 298, 328–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moyà-Solà, S., Alba, D.M., Almecija, S. et al. 2009. A unique middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moyà-Solà, S. & Köhler, M. 1996. The first Dryopithecus skeleton: origins of great ape locomotion. Nature 379, 156–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyà-Solà, S. & Köhler, M. 1997. The phylogenetic relationships of Oreopithecus bambolii Gervais, 1872. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris 324, 141–148.Google Scholar
Nelson, E., Rolian, C., Cashmore, L. & Shultz, S. 2014. Digit ratios predict polygyny in early apes, Ardipithecus, Neandertals and early modern humans, but not in Australopithecus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278, 1556–1563.Google Scholar
Nevell, L. & Wood, B. 2008. Cranial base evolution within the hominin clade. Journal of Anatomy 212, 455–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilbeam, D.R. 1982. New hominoid skull material from the Miocene of Pakistan. Nature 295, 232–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, B.A., Ruff, C.B., Simons, E.L.R. & Organ, J.M. 2013. Humeral cross-sectional shape in suspensory primates and sloths. The Anatomical Record 296, 545–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reno, P.L., Melindi, R.S., McCollum, M.A. & Lovejoy, C.O. 2003. Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, 9404–9409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolian, C. & Gordon, A.D. 2013. Reassessing manual proportions inAustralopithecus afarensis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152, 393–406.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, A.L., Halenar, L., Cooke, S.B. & Hartwig, W.C. 2008. Morphology and evolution of the spider monkey, genus Ateles. In Campbell, C.J., Editor, Spider Monkeys: Ecology and Evolution of the Genus Ateles, 19–50. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruff, C.B. & Higgins, R. 2013. Femoral neck structure and function in early hominins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 150, 512–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, N.J., Seiffert, E.R., O'Connor, P.M et al. 2013. Palaeontological evidence for an Oligocene divergence between Old World monkeys and apes. Nature (Published online 15 April 2013).
Susman, R.L. 1994. Fossil evidence for early hominid tool use. Science 265, 1570–1573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szalay, F. & Delson, E. 1979. Evolutionary History of the Primates. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tocheri, M.W., Orr, C.M., Jacofsky, M.C. & Marzke, M.W. 2008. The evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo. Journal of Anatomy 212, 544–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuttle, R.H. 1967. Knuckle-walking and the evolution of hominoid hands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26, 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, C.V., Plavcan, J.M. & Manthi, F.K. 2010. Anterior dental evolution in the Australopithecus anamensis-afarensis lineage. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 365, 3333–3344.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Putting together the evidence
  • Peter Andrews, Natural History Museum, London
  • Book: An Ape's View of Human Evolution
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316180938.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Putting together the evidence
  • Peter Andrews, Natural History Museum, London
  • Book: An Ape's View of Human Evolution
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316180938.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Putting together the evidence
  • Peter Andrews, Natural History Museum, London
  • Book: An Ape's View of Human Evolution
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316180938.017
Available formats
×