Comment on "Grasping Primate Origins"

Kirk, E. Christopher; Cartmill, Matt; Kay, Richard F.; Lemelin, Pierre

doi:10.1126/science.1081587

Cited by 54 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Divergent, prehensile marginal toes and reduced claws have evolved independently in several groups of small arboreal mammals with diverse feeding habits, including strict herbivory (Hapalomys, Chiropodomys) as well as visual predation (Burramys) and mixed feeding on both fruit and insects (Microcebus spp.). [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] Although some think otherwise, 93,94 the evidence seems to me to continue to support the widely accepted notion 13,40,[95][96][97][98][99] that hindfoot prehensility and claw reduction originally appeared in all these lineages as an adaptation to locomotion in what Charles-Dominique and Martin 100 called ''the fine branch and creeper niche.'' But this tells us nothing about diet, because the habitual use of small-diameter supports is compatible with eating any sort of resource available in such milieus: insects, nectar, fruits, insect and plant secretions, or some mixture of these.…”

Section: Primate Origins?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate origins, human origins, and the end of higher taxa

Cartmill

2012

Evolutionary Anthropology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people learn that I study human evolution and we start talking about it, they sometimes ask me, “How long ago did the first humans live?” My answer is usually another question: “What do you mean by 'humans'?” That response seems as baffling and wrong‐headed to them as their question seems to me, and it usually takes us a while to straighten things out. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Primate Origins?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate origins, human origins, and the end of higher taxa

Cartmill

2012

Evolutionary Anthropology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the recently described basal omomyiform Teilhardina asiatica from the early Eocene of China has an estimated orbit convergence value of 51° (Ni et al, 2004), similar to extant small-sized strepsirrhine primates (Ross, 1995;Heesy, 2003). High convergence in Teilhardina and other early primates when considered together with the distribution of orbit convergence among extant primates suggests that high convergence and binocular vision are primitive for primates (Cartmill, 1972(Cartmill, , 1974Allman, 1977;Ross, 1995;Heesy, 2003;Kirk et al, 2003). This phylogenetic view provides additional support for the hypothesis that has come to be known as the nocturnal visual predation hypothesis of primate origins, which explains orbit convergence and binocular visual field overlap as a unified component of a visual system that was adapted for predatory behavior in a light-limited environment (Cartmill, 1972(Cartmill, , 1974(Cartmill, , 1992Allman, 1977Allman, , 1999Pettigrew, 1978Pettigrew, , 1986Heesy and Ross, 2001;Kirk et al, 2003; but see Ni et al, 2004).…”

Section: Binocular and Stereoscopic Vision In Basal Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the relationship between orbit orientation and binocular visual field overlap in mammals

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The orbital apertures of Primates are among the most convergent (i.e., facing in the same direction) among mammals. It is often assumed that orbit convergence is associated with binocular visual field overlap and stereoscopic depth perception in primates. Likewise, it is also assumed that orbit orientation reflects the shape of the visual field across mammals. To date, however, no study has demonstrated that orbit and visual field orientation are correlated, much less comparable, across mammals. In this study, data on orbit convergence were collected for a representative sample of mammals for which data on the extent of the visual field are available. Both standard and phylogenetically controlled comparisons were made. The results demonstrate that orbit convergence and binocular visual field overlap are significantly correlated and display a linear relationship. Based on orbit convergence, Primates as a group have the largest binocular visual fields among mammals.

show abstract

“…Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of prehensile, clawless hands thought to characterize the earliest primates (Cartmill 1972(Cartmill , 1974aGodinot 1991Godinot , 2007Rasmussen 1990;Sussman 1991, Sussman et al 2013Szalay and Dagosto 1988). A first one, the visual predation hypothesis, suggests that the prehensile hands of primates with long and clawless fingers were originally an adaptation for locomotion on narrow branches and were used subsequently for visually guided manual predation on insects (Cartmill 1972(Cartmill , 1974a(Cartmill , b, 1992Kirk et al 2003). In another hypothesis, Szalay and Dagosto (1988) proposed an evolutionary relationship between features associated with grasping with those for leaping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Substrate Diameter and Orientation in the Context of Food Type in the Gray Mouse Lemur, Microcebus murinus: Implications for the Origins of Grasping in Primates

Toussaint¹,

Herrel

Ross

et al. 2015

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasping is a widespread behavior among tetrapod vertebrates. In primates, the hands and feet are involved in many tasks including arboreal locomotion and food acquisition. Yet, the origin and the evolution of prehensile capacities, which are highly diversified across this group, remain open for inquiry. Some researchers suggest that grasping evolved in an arboreal habitat consisting of fine branches associated with insect predation and/or fruit and flower exploitation. However, few studies have tested the importance of arboreal conditions and diet, e.g., frugivorous, omnivorous, on the use of the hands in food grasping. The aim of this study was to link substrate use and food grasping strategies quantitatively to test hypotheses concerning primate grasping origins. We studied a species often described as a good ecological model to study the origin of grasping in primates, Microcebus murinus, and quantified its spontaneous substrate use (diameter and orientation) in an unconstrained environment while presenting them with different food types (static and mobile). We show that 1) Microcebus murinus appears to be an opportunistic rather than a specialist user of fine branches as suggested previously, at least under laboratory conditions; and 2) food properties had an impact on the use of the hands vs. the mouth, with the hands being used more for the Int J Primatol (2015) 36:583-604 grasping of mobile prey. Our results are consistent with hypotheses for primate origins that propose adaptations to both a narrow branch environment and visually directed prey capture with the hands. However, additional studies in the wild are needed to understand better the origin and increased use of the hands in primates grasping and manipulation.

show abstract

Comment on "Grasping Primate Origins"

Cited by 54 publications

References 13 publications

Primate origins, human origins, and the end of higher taxa

Primate origins, human origins, and the end of higher taxa

On the relationship between orbit orientation and binocular visual field overlap in mammals

Substrate Diameter and Orientation in the Context of Food Type in the Gray Mouse Lemur, Microcebus murinus: Implications for the Origins of Grasping in Primates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About