What we don't know about great ape variation

Uchida, Akiko

doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10007-0

Cited by 39 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Her odontometric data are consistent with other morphological evidence (Braga, 1995;Uchida, 1996;Braga, 1998;Guy et al, 2003;Taylor and Groves, 2003;Lockwood et al, 2004) and with genetic evidence that all suggest that P. t. verus is the most distinctive subspecies of P. troglodytes. Her data also support the genetic and other morphological evidence for the distinctiveness of P. t. ellioti.…”

Section: Great Ape Taxonomy and Biogeography Pansupporting

confidence: 77%

Great ape skeletal collections: Making the most of scarce and irreplaceable resources in the digital age

Gordon

Marcus

Wood

2013

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information about primate genomes has re-emphasized the importance of the great apes (Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo) as, for most purposes, the appropriate comparators when generating hypotheses about the most recent common ancestor of the hominins and panins, or the most recent common ancestor of the hominin clade. Great ape skeletal collections are thus an important and irreplaceable resource for researchers conducting these types of comparative analyses, yet the integrity of these collections is threatened by unnecessary use and their availability is threatened by financial pressures on the institutions in which the collections reside. We discuss the general history of great ape skeletal collections, and in order to get a better sense of the utility and potential of these important sources of data we assemble the equivalent of a biography of the Powell-Cotton Collection. We explore the history of how this collection of chimpanzee and gorilla skeletons was accumulated, how it came to be recognized as a potentially important source of comparative information, who has made use of it, and what types of data have been collected. We present a protocol for collecting information about each individual animal (e.g., which bones are preserved, their condition, etc.) and have made that information about the Powell-Cotton Collection freely available in an online relational database (Human Origins Database, www.humanoriginsdatabase.org). As an illustration of the practical application of these data, we developed a tabular summary of ontogenetic information about each individual (see Appendices A and B). Collections like the PowellCotton are irreplaceable sources of material regarding the hard-tissue evidence and recent history of the closest living relatives of modern humans. We end this contribution by suggesting ways that curators and the researchers who use and rely on these reference collections could work together to help preserve and protect them so that future generations can use and benefit from these priceless resources. Am J Phys Anthropol 57:2-32,

show abstract

Section: Great Ape Taxonomy and Biogeography Pansupporting

confidence: 77%

Great ape skeletal collections: Making the most of scarce and irreplaceable resources in the digital age

Gordon

Marcus

Wood

2013

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This level of distinction corroborates the findings of Guy et al (2003) and of Lockwood et al (2002) obtained from craniometric analyses, and parallels the marked genetic differences observed between P. pygmaeus subspecies; along with Ruvolo et al (1994), they are compa- rable to or greater than those between the two Pan species. Therefore, such a magnitude of difference in mandibular shape provides supplementary argument in favour of two distinct evolutionary trends probably because of drift following genetic isolation by biogeographic barriers (Röhrer-Ertl, 1988;Uchida, 1996;Warren et al, 2001;BrandonJones et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Pongo pygmaeus pygameus and Pongo pygmaeus abelii. The Gorilla sample included the three subspecies (Groves, 1986;Uchida, 1996Uchida, , 1998: Gorilla gorilla beringei, Gorilla gorilla gorilla, and Gorilla gorilla graueri. Within the genus Pan, we incorporated specimens of the Pan paniscus and the Pan troglodytes subspecies: P. t. schweinfurthii, P. t. troglodytes, and P. t. verus (Uchida, 1996;Groves, 2001).…”

Section: Osteological Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Gorilla sample included the three subspecies (Groves, 1986;Uchida, 1996Uchida, , 1998: Gorilla gorilla beringei, Gorilla gorilla gorilla, and Gorilla gorilla graueri. Within the genus Pan, we incorporated specimens of the Pan paniscus and the Pan troglodytes subspecies: P. t. schweinfurthii, P. t. troglodytes, and P. t. verus (Uchida, 1996;Groves, 2001). The Homo sample is represented by the modern humans Homo sapiens; in the present study, we analyzed a regional group of modern humans from the rhenish basin (Alsace in Eastern France, Baden in Western Germany, and Western Switzerland).…”

Section: Osteological Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variations of the mandibular shape in extant hominoids: Generic, specific, and subspecific quantification using elliptical fourier analysis in lateral view

Schmittbuhl¹,

Rieger²,

Minor³

et al. 2006

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a number of studies have documented the mandibular variations in hominoids, few focused on evaluating the variation of the whole outline of this structure. Using an efficient morphometrical approach, i.e. elliptical Fourier analysis, mandibular outlines in lateral view from 578 adult hominoids representing the genera Hylobates, Pongo, Gorilla, Pan, and Homo were quantified and compared. This study confirms that elliptical Fourier analysis provides an accurate characterization of the shape of the mandibular profile. Differences in mandibular shape between hominoid genera, species, subspecies, and to a lesser extent between sexes were demonstrated. Mandibles in great apes and hylobatids subspecies were generally less distinct from each other than were species. However, the magnitudes of differences among subspecies of Gorilla and Pongo approached or exceeded those between Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus. The powerful discrimination between taxa from the genus down to subspecific level associated to the relatively low level of intrageneric mandibular polymorphism in great apes provides strong evidences in support of the taxonomic utility of the shape of the mandibular profile in hominoids. In addition, morphological affinities between Pongo and Pan and the clear distinction between Homo and Pan suggest that the mandibular outline is a poor estimate of phylogenetic relationships in great apes and humans. The sexual dimorphism in mandibular shape exhibits two patterns of expression: a high degree of dimorphism in Gorilla, Pongo, and H. s. syndactylus and a relatively low one in modern humans and Pan. Besides, degree of mandibular shape dimorphism can vary considerably among closely related subspecies as observed in gorillas, arguing against the use of mandibular shape dimorphism patterns as characters in phylogenetic analyses. However, the quantification of the mandibular shape and of the variations among hominoids provides an interesting comparative framework that is likely to supply further arguments for a better understanding of the patterns of differentiation between living hominoids.

show abstract

“…Patterns such as the distribution of global species richness are sensitive to taxonomic inflation; therefore, regional conservation priority should be based on relatively stable species lists. Conservation action, such as recovery plans, can often be independent of species altogether: ideally, it should make little difference to conservationists whether the mountain gorilla Gorilla gorilla beringei is classified as a species, subspecies or local population [37].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%