Brief communication: Cranial reconstruction of Dryopithecus

Abstract

This paper presents the first three-dimensional reconstruction of the cranium of the European Miocene ape, 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. Anthropol. 103:277-294). Previously unrecognized facial fragments from CLI 18000 were included in the reconstruction. The result shows that Dryopithecus had a relatively short face, with a rather short and well-rounded neurocranium. From the lateral perspective, the face is concave at midface, and on the cranium the temporal lines run parallel to each other without forming a sagittal crest.

First partial face and upper dentition of the Middle Miocene hominoid Dryopithecus fontani from Abocador de Can Mata (Vallès‐Penedès Basin, Catalonia, NE Spain): Taxonomic and phylogenetic implications

“…Most of the specimens were assigned to D. laietanus, but a new species D. crusafonti was erected on the basis of material from Can Ponsic (Begun, 1992a; but see Harrison, 1991, andRibot et al, 1996). Excavations at Can Llobateres 2 begun in 1990, leading to the discovery of a partial face and skeleton of D. laietanus (Moyà - Solà and Köhler, 1993, 1995, 1996Köhler et al, 2001b). Additional remains of this taxon have been discovered in the 2000s during excavation works at E.D.A.R.…”

Computerized restoration of nonhomogeneous deformation of a fossil cranium based on bilateral symmetry

“…In this study, we propose a computerized method to correct nonhomogeneous deformation of a fossil skull. In this method, the skull is undeformed based on bilateral symmetry as assumed elsewhere (Kohler et al, 2001;Ponce de Leon and Zollikofer, 1999), but the taphonomic deformation is not modeled as a homogeneous process. We will first describe the proposed restoration procedure, and then present the actual application of the method to the Proconsul heseloni cranium for illustration of the procedure.…”

A new cranium of Dryopithecus from Rudabánya, Hungary

“…The evidence from Rudabánya suggests that this approach may not be the most fruitful. RUD 200 and RUD 77 have more elongated crania than the composite illustrated by Kö hler et al (2001) and lack the expanded nuchal region in superior view. The superior view as illustrated by Kö hler et al (2001) is based on an older plaster of Paris cast of a preliminary reconstruction of RUD 77, while their lateral view is based on our more recent reconstruction .…”

“…RUD 200 and RUD 77 have more elongated crania than the composite illustrated by Kö hler et al (2001) and lack the expanded nuchal region in superior view. The superior view as illustrated by Kö hler et al (2001) is based on an older plaster of Paris cast of a preliminary reconstruction of RUD 77, while their lateral view is based on our more recent reconstruction . Unfortunately, these differ significantly, illustrating the importance of collecting data on original fossils (the RUD 77 original is available for analysis at the Geological Museum of Hungary and high resolution casts are of RUD 77 are available as well).…”

“…The contact between the face and neurocranium and the shape of the cranium in superior view in RUD 200 also calls into question certain aspects of the composite cranium of Dryopithecus recently proposed by Kö hler et al (2001). We have to wonder about the usefulness of constructing a composite cranium of Dryopithecus based on specimens from males of two different species and a female from a third species.…”