A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey

Abstract

An adult maxilla and partial mandibles of a hominoid primate recovered from the late Miocene locality of Çorakyerler (central Anatolia) are recognized as a new species of Ouranopithecus, one of the rare western Eurasian hominoids to have survived well into the late Miocene. This species is distinguished from its sister taxon, and likely ancestor Ouranopithecus macedoniensis, by a constellation of dentognathic features. The new species, in which the male postcanine dentition is larger than that of any other Miocene ape besides Gigantopithecus, is associated with evidence indicating an open, dry environment. Dental features of Ouranopithecus apparently evolved in parallel with later Australopithecus, and suggest that Ouranopithecus was adapted to a diet of tough/abrasive foods.

New Material of the Hominoid Ouranopithecus macedoniensis from the Late Miocene of the Axios Valley (Macedonia, Greece) with Some Remarks on Its Sexual Dimorphism

“…The hominoid O. turkae is known from the Turkish locality Çorakyerler correlated to the early Turolian, MN 11 [Güleç et al, 2007;Kaya et al, 2016]. The main differences from O. macedoniensis are the presence of a honing facet in the P 3 , the presence of cingulum in the molars [Güleç et al, 2007] and the larger size ( fig.…”

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

“…Several Miocene hominoids are known from Turkey and the taxon closer in age to the studied one is Ouranopithecus turkae, known from the late Miocene locality Çorakyerler (Güleç et al, 2007). The I 1 of this species has similar lingual morphology and size to that of O. macedoniensis, especially with RPl-293 and RPl-294 (Figure 4a, Figure 5).…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

A second hominoid species in the early Late Miocene fauna of Nakali (Kenya)

“…Nakalipithecus nakayamai from Nakali, Kenya, is a relatively large hominoid, approximately the size of extant orangutans to female gorillas in dental dimensions (Kunimatsu et al, 2007). Its dental morphology and size are reminiscent of those of Ouranopithecus from Greece and Turkey Koufos, 1993, 1994;Koufos and de Bonis, 2005;Güleç et al, 2007;Koufos, 2015), but Nakalipithecus retains more primitive features such as better-developed cingula and less inflated cusps on the cheek teeth and it is slightly older in chronological age (Kunimatsu et al, 2007). The dental sim-ilarities suggest that Nakalipithecus might be ancestral to the Eurasian Ouranopithecus, but parallelism due to similar functional demands for hard-object/abrasive food feeding cannot be excluded (Kunimattsu et al, 2007).…”