A new reconstruction of RUD 77, a partial cranium ofDryopithecus brancoi from Rudabánya, Hungary

Abstract

A newly reconstructed cranium (RUD 77) of the Miocene fossil hominoid Dryopithecus, formerly Rudapithecus (Kretzoi [1969] Symp. Biol. Hung. 9:3-11; Begun and Kordos [1993] J. Hum. Evol. 25:271-286) is presented here. This specimen, from the late Miocene locality of Rudabánya, in northeastern Hungary, consists of portions of the neurocranium, face, and postcanine dentition. Newly recovered portions of the parietal, occipital, temporal, zygomatic, and premaxillary bones, which are described here for the first time, in association with previously described portions of this specimen (Kordos [1987] Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Natl. Hung. 79:77-88) make RUD 77 among the most complete and well preserved neurocrania of any Miocene hominoid. Detailed anatomical descriptions and measurements are provided here, along with comparisons to other relatively complete Miocene hominoid cranial remains, and to living hominoids. While a more complete phylogenetic analysis is in preparation based on the sample as a whole, it is suggested here that RUD 77 provides some additional evidence in support of a previous hypothesis that Dryopithecus is more closely related to the African apes and humans than is Sivapithecus.

Paranasal sinus anatomy of Aegyptopithecus : Implications for hominoid origins

“…This conclusion receives further support from the recent report of a sinus in the frontal bone of another stem catarrhine, the pliopithecid Anapithecus (34). Conversely, the loss of this sinus complex in the orangutan and the Eurasian Miocene ape Sivapithecus is best interpreted as a synapomorphy (27).…”

Gibbons and hominoid ancestry

“…Their characters are as follows: skulls with lightly built crania with relatively prominent brow ridges; variable prognathism from low to high; strong angle between face and skull (klinorhynchy) in Hispanopithecus laietanus; reduced maxillary sinus; broad triangular nose; broad palate; high zygomatic root; primitive teeth in D. fontani, molars with broad basins between cusps elongated molars and premolars in Pierolapithecus; teeth with thick enamel in Anoiapithecus and Pierolapithecus; reduced M3 in the three earlier species but not in H. laietanus and R. hungaricus; orthograde (upright) posture; broad chest region; long clavicle; scapula shifted on to back; stiff lumbar region; mobile elbow joint, stable at full extension; mobile wrist; long slender hand phalanges (short and less curved in some); femur head above greater trochanter; femur neck steeply angled. Not all these characters are known for all species, but where they are known for two or more species the characters are consistent, with the conclusion that upright posture, and/or suspensory locomotion had evolved in some species of dryopithecines, particularly in Hispanopithecus laietanus (Crusafont-Pairo and Hurzeler, 1961;Pilbeam and Simons, 1971;Kretzoi, 1975;Morbeck, 1983;Begun et al, 1990Begun et al, , 2003Moyà-Solà et al, 1993, 2004, 2009a, 2009bKordos, 1991;Begun and Kordos, 1993;Moyà-Solà S. and Köhler, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997Kordos and Begun 1997;Ungar and Kay 1995;Kordos and Begun, 1997;Kordos and Begun, 1997;Begun, 2002Begun, , 2009Ungar, 2005;Alba et al, 2010;Begun et al, 2012). Some of the characters supposedly indicating suspensory locomotion are absent in gibbons, the most suspensory of the apes, for example the stiff lower back.…”

Brief communication: Cranial reconstruction of Dryopithecus

“…The reconstruction is based on remains collected from Can Llobateres, Spain (CLI 18000; Dryopithecus laietanus), D. fontani (St. Gaudens), and D. brancoi (Kordos and Begun [1997] Am. J. Phys.…”

“…Our reconstruction is based on the facial fragments and the temporal bone with petrosal of Dryopithecus laietanus from Can Llobateres, Spain (CLl 18000), exhaustively described elsewhere Köhler, 1993, 1995), as well as two mandibles of comparable tooth size of the species D. fontani (St. Gaudens) and the partial braincase of D. brancoi RUD 77 (Kordos and Begun, 1997), with an associated upper tooth row of approximately the same size as CLl 18000.…”

“…For the lateral view of RUD 77, we used the photograph published in Kordos and Begun (1997, p. 280), amplified to natural size, as well as the Dryopithecus specimen. For the superior view it was necessary to use an older version of the RUD 77 cast, as the photograph provided by Kordos and Begun (1997) is not a superior but a supero-posterior view. Therefore, we eliminated those pieces that do not fit with the later version.…”