A new cranium of Dryopithecus from Rudabánya, Hungary

Kordos, László; Begun, David R.

doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0523

Cited by 56 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the mesially positioned, strongly heteromorphic cusps on the P 3 of Proconsul, plus the corresponding asymmetric buccal profile, notched mesial margin, and missing mesial fovea are characteristic of other early Miocene catarrhines such as Dendropithecus, Rangwapithecus, and Limnopithecus, and are likely primitive among East African catarrhines. The more symmetric P 3 of Ekembo, with midline positioned cusps and reduced cusp heteromorphy, is reminiscent of later hominoids, and even hominid taxa such as Rudapithecus (e.g., Kordos and Begun, 2001).…”

Section: Derived Morphology Of Ekembo and Proconsulmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic revision of Proconsul with the description of a new genus of early Miocene hominoid

McNulty

Begun

Kelley

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than 80 years, Proconsul has held a pivotal position in interpretations of catarrhine evolution in East Africa. From early hypotheses of phyletic relationships with modern apes to more recent debates over their position within Hominoidea, the well-preserved fossils of this genus have been a foundation for most evolutionary scenarios regarding the early diversification of hominoids. The majority of what we "know" about Proconsul, however, derives from abundant younger fossils found at the Kisingiri localities on Rusinga and Mfangano Islands rather than from the smaller samples found at Koru -the locality of the type species, Proconsul africanus -and other Tinderet deposits. One outcome of this is seen in recent attempts to expand the genus "Ugandapithecus" (considered here a junior subjective synonym of Proconsul), wherein much of the Tinderet sample was referred to that genus based primarily on differentiating it from the Kisingiri specimens rather than from the type species, P.africanus. This and other recent taxonomic revisions to Proconsul prompted us to undertake a systematic review of dentognathic specimens attributed to this taxon. Results of our study underscore and extend the substantive distinction of Tinderet and Ugandan Proconsul (i.e., Proconsul sensu stricto) from the Kisingiri fossils, the latter recognized here as a new genus. Specimens of the new genus are readily distinguished from Proconsul sensu stricto by morphology preserved in the P. africanus holotype, M 14084, but also in I 1 s, lower incisors, upper and lower canines, and especially mandibular characteristics. A number of these differences are more advanced among Kisingiri specimens in the direction of crown hominoids. Proconsul sensu stricto is characterized by a suite of unique features that strongly unite the included species as a clade. There have been decades of contentious debate over the phylogenetic placement of Proconsul (sensu lato), due in part to there being a mixture of primitive and more advanced morphology within the single genus. By recognizing two distinct clades that, in large part, segregate these character states, we believe that better phylogenetic resolution can be achieved.3

show abstract

Section: Derived Morphology Of Ekembo and Proconsulmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic revision of Proconsul with the description of a new genus of early Miocene hominoid

McNulty

Begun

Kelley

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4) differs from that of O. macedoniensis in showing a higher crown relative to MD (Table 2), a vertical groove in the mesial half of the labial surface, a triangular lingual outline, a basal bulge separated from the mesial and distal marginal ridges by deep mesial and distal vertical fissures, a strong median lingual pillar, no mesial lingual pillar, a thick mesial marginal ridge, a less convex distal marginal ridge, and remarkably smaller size (Figure 4a). The I 1 of H. laietanus differs from that of Ouranopithecus in displaying a mesiodistally shorter crown relative to the LaL (Table 2), a vertical groove in the mesial Alba et al (2012), Begun (1992), Chaimanee et al (2003), Güleç et al (2007), Kelley et al (1995), Kimbel et al (1982), Kordos and Begun (2001), Kunimatsu et al (2007), Pérez de los Ríos et al (2012Ríos et al ( , 2013, and Pickford (2012 half of the labial surface, absence of median lingual pillar, a less convex distal marginal ridge (Figure 4b) and a mesiodistally shorter crown relative to LaL (Table 3); the little-worn IPS-58333 of H. laietanus is distinguished from that of O. macedoniensis in displaying wrinkled enamel on the lingual surface.…”

Section: Comparison With Extinct Hominoidsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Rudapithecus hungaricus is a late Miocene hominoid found in the locality Rudabánya, Hungary (Begun and Kordos, 1993;Kordos and Begun, 2001). The I 1 of this taxon has a higher crown relative to MD, a shorter MD diameter relative to LaL (Table 2), and a more prominent basal bulge than that of Ouranopithecus.…”

Section: Comparison With Extinct Hominoidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The I 1 of this taxon has a higher crown relative to MD, a shorter MD diameter relative to LaL (Table 2), and a more prominent basal bulge than that of Ouranopithecus. The I 2 of R. hungaricus has high crown and triangular lingual outline (Kordos and Begun, 2001: fig. 1), differing from that of Ouranopithecus in having a mesiodistally shorter crown relative to LaL (Table 3) and an angular incisal margin.…”

Section: Comparison With Extinct Hominoidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3c). The subelliptical lingual outline, the mesiodistally short crown relative to LaL (Table 2), the presence of a weak lingual pillar, the few accessory lingual ridges, and the strongly curved distal , Chaimanee et al (2003), Güleç et al (2007), Kelley et al (1995), Kimbel et al (1982), Kordos and Begun (2001), Kunimatsu et al (2007), Pérez de los Ríos et al (2012, 2013), and Pickford (2012 marginal ridge of its I 1 agree with the morphology of RPl-293 and RPl-294 (Figure 5b, d). However, it differs from Ouranopithecus I 1 in having slightly smaller size (Figure 4a), and a lingual cingulum continuous with the mesial and distal marginal ridges (Kunimatsu et al, 2007), a trait that is absent in O. macedoniensis.…”

Section: Comparison With Extinct Hominoidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Upper incisor morphology of the Late Miocene hominoid <i>Ouranopithecus macedoniensis</i> from Axios Valley (Macedonia, Greece)

Koufos

Bonis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The upper incisor lingual morphology of the late Miocene Greek hominoid Ouranopithecus macedoniensis was almost unknown, as the described earlier maxillary remains preserve only worn incisors. During the most recent excavations in the type locality of Ouranopithecus, Ravin de la Pluie (RPl) of Axios Valley (Macedonia, Greece), four little-worn upper central incisors were recovered. This material and a few additional worn upper incisors, discovered recently, are described and compared in this article. Even though a morphological comparison with the old RPl material, lacking unworn or little worn incisors, is impossible, the metrical comparison and the monospecific character of the RPl hominoid sample suggest that the described incisors can be assigned to Ouranopithecus macedoniensis. The described upper central incisors are separated in two size-groups which in general have similar morphology except for some minor differences such as the presence of a pronounced mesial lingual pillar in the small-sized specimens. The observed significant size difference among the studied incisors is attributed to the strong sexual dimorphism of Ouranopithecus, which is also well expressed in the other teeth. The lingual morphology of the upper incisors of Ouranopithecus are not identical to those of extant great apes, though they have some similarities with those of the African great apes (Gorilla and Pan), while they are clearly different from those of the Asian great ape (Pongo). Even though they have some morphological similarities, the O. macedoniensis central incisors are probably not identical to those of the Eurasian Miocene hominoids; the most similar central incisor is that of Ouranopithecus turkae. Among the known African Miocene hominoids, Nakalipithecus upper central incisor is quite similar in morphology and size to that of Ouranopithecus.

show abstract

Hominoid Cranial Evolution

Schroeder

Cramon‐Taubadel

2020

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extant hominoid cranial variability, although marked, represents only a remnant of a temporally and geographically expansive evolutionary history. Attempts to reconstruct the evolutionary processes that have played a role in the morphological divergence of this superfamily have been complicated by a sparse hominoid fossil record, and ambiguity related to phylogenetic relationships. Moreover, morphological variation in the cranium is influenced by a complex combination of functional, developmental and architectural constraints, complicating our ability to tease apart specific evolutionary pressures. However, due to advances in the field of evolutionary quantitative genetics, recent studies of extant hominoid taxa have reconstructed the potential evolutionary processes that have generated cranial diversity. Collectively, these studies have shown that directional selection, although identified in the evolutionary path to hominins, was not the major driving force behind this divergence. Rather, it is a combination of genetic drift and stabilising selection that characterises the evolution of the hominoid cranium. Key Concepts Morphological diversity in the hominoid cranium is extensive. Cranial diversity is influenced by evolutionary, developmental, functional, structural forces and constraints. Extant hominoids are a small fraction of all hominoids that have ever lived. The hominoid fossil record is fragmentary and phylogenetic relationships are ambiguous. Quantitative genetic analyses indicate a combination of evolutionary processes have shaped the hominoid cranium.

show abstract

A new cranium of Dryopithecus from Rudabánya, Hungary

Cited by 56 publications

References 22 publications

A systematic revision of Proconsul with the description of a new genus of early Miocene hominoid

A systematic revision of Proconsul with the description of a new genus of early Miocene hominoid

Upper incisor morphology of the Late Miocene hominoid <i>Ouranopithecus macedoniensis</i> from Axios Valley (Macedonia, Greece)

Hominoid Cranial Evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About