Anoiapithecus brevirostris

I’m still in the process of reading the paper and hope to have a more detailed post up later. In the meantime here are some pictures for your edification.

Cranium and mandible of Anoiapithecus brevirostris (IPS43000, holotype). (A) Right lateral view. (B) Frontal view. (C) Left lateral view. (D) Superior view. (E) Palatal view. (F) Occlusal view of the mandible. (G) CT scan of the rightM2, showing enamel thickness. All photographs were taken with the tooth row oriented horizontally. For safety reasons, the cranial reconstruction (A–D) is based on casts of the original specimens.

Cranium and mandible of Anoiapithecus brevirostris (IPS43000, holotype). (A) Right lateral view. (B) Frontal view. (C) Left lateral view. (D) Superior view. (E) Palatal view. (F) Occlusal view of the mandible. (G) CT scan of the rightM2, showing enamel thickness. All photographs were taken with the tooth row oriented horizontally. For safety reasons, the cranial reconstruction (A–D) is based on casts of the original specimens.

The paper argues for a European origin for the Hominidae as this phylogeny makes clear:

Simplified cladogram depicting the phylogenetic hypothesis and biogeographic scenario favored in this paper. The Afropithecinae include the Afropithecini; the Equatorini include Equatorius and Nacholapithecus; the Kenyapithecini include Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus; and the Dryopithecini include Pierolapithecus, Dryopithecus s.s., and Anoiapithecus. Nodes: 0, taillessness and other postcranial and cranial features; 1, thick enamel, dental morphology, robust mandible, procumbent premaxilla; 2, anterior position of the zygomatic root, strong mandibular inferior torus; 3, reduction of maxillary sinus, very deep canine fossa, reduced mandibular length; 4, high face, high zygomatic root, wide nasal aperture (widest at the base), flat nasals that project anteriorly beneath the level of the inferior orbital rim, orthograde-related features (as judged from Pierolapithecus). This hypothesis implies a back-to-Africa dispersal of the Homininae and a reversal of some features of node 3 in this group, but assumes that features of node 4 are homologous between pongines and hominines.

Simplified cladogram depicting the phylogenetic hypothesis and biogeographic scenario favored in this paper. The Afropithecinae include the Afropithecini; the Equatorini include Equatorius and Nacholapithecus; the Kenyapithecini include Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus; and the Dryopithecini include Pierolapithecus, Dryopithecus s.s., and Anoiapithecus. Nodes: 0, taillessness and other postcranial and cranial features; 1, thick enamel, dental morphology, robust mandible, procumbent premaxilla; 2, anterior position of the zygomatic root, strong mandibular inferior torus; 3, reduction of maxillary sinus, very deep canine fossa, reduced mandibular length; 4, high face, high zygomatic root, wide nasal aperture (widest at the base), flat nasals that project anteriorly beneath the level of the inferior orbital rim, orthograde-related features (as judged from Pierolapithecus). This hypothesis implies a back-to-Africa dispersal of the Homininae and a reversal of some features of node 3 in this group, but assumes that features of node 4 are homologous between pongines and hominines.

Why they make this argument is the subject of a future post…

About these ads

2 Responses

  1. I’m definitely looking forward to your analysis, which I am sure will be more in-depth than what I put together. As always, we need more fossils! It’s tough comparing fragments to other fragments when you don’t always have the same parts!

  2. Aww, yours was a good post on the subject, but yes we do need more fossils. I think this paper was a follow up to one on a Dryopithecus fossil they published in the AJPA.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers

%d bloggers like this: