Re: suspension: lesser // great apes?
Thanks Marc,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Very interesting. I don't suppose you have access to the whole paper?
-- "Does this suggest that early hominoids were more aquatic than arboreal??"
I've found some evidence to suggest that the earliest apes were perhaps predominantly semi-aquatic and it was the flooding of forests 25 Ma in East Africa due to early rifting that may have caused the monkey/ape split.
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2022 12:28 AM
Subject: [AAT] suspension: lesser // great apes?
Phylogenetic analysis of Middle-Late Miocene apes Kelsey D Pugh 2022 J.hum.Evol.165, 103140 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103140
Despite intensive study, many aspects of the evolutionary history of Hominidae (gr.apes+humans) are not well understood.
The phylogenetic relationships of many fossil taxa remain poorly resolved.
This study aims to provide an updated hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships for Mid-Late-Miocene fossil apes, focusing on those taxa typically considered to be great apes.
The character matrix compiled here samples 274 characters from skull, dentition & post-cranium.
Multiple iterations were performed to examine the effects of ingroup taxon selection, outgroup constraints, treatment of continuous data, character partitions (cranio-dental, post-cranial) & missing data.
Parsimony & Bayesian methods were used to infer phylogenetic relationships.
Most European hominoids (Hispano-, Ruda-, Dryo-, Pierola-pithecus) are recovered as stem-hominids: not more closely related to Ponginae or to Homininae (Afr.apes-humans), but Ourano-, Graeco- & Nakalipithecus are inferred to be members of the hominine clade.
Asian fossil hominoids (except Lufengpith.hudienensis) are recovered as part of Ponginae.
Results suggest :
- Kenya- & Griphopithecus are possible stem-hominids,
- Equatorius & Nacholapithecus are consistently recovered as stem-hominoids,
- Oreo- & Samburupithecus are not recovered as hominids.
Results of Bayesian analyses differ from those of parsimony analyses.
Cranio-dental & post-cranial character partitions are incongruent in the placement of hylobatids:
did hylobatids & hominids independently evolve adaptations to suspensory positional behaviors?
An understanding of phylogenetic relationships is necessary to address many PA questions:
the updated hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships presented here can be used to gain a better understanding of
- important morphological transitions that took place during hominid evolution,
- ancestral morphotypes at key nodes,
- the bio-geography of the clade.
Does this suggest that early hominoids were more aquatic than arboreal??