Postcranial functional morphology of Morotopithecus bishopi, with implications for the evolution of modern ape locomotion

MacLatchy, Laura; Gebo, Daniel L.; Kityo, Robert; Pilbeam, David

doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0407

Cited by 127 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This angle is comparable to that in gibbons and spider monkeys (Rose et al, 1992;MacLatchy et al, 2000). The trochanteric crest is collapsed and closes the trochanteric fossa (Figure 2d).…”

Section: Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…crista trochanterica is observed on the posterior aspect of the neck (arrows in Figure 2e) similar to Proconsul and Morotopithecus (MacLatchy et al, 2000).…”

Section: Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Both the s-i and a-p diameters of the head are 22.1 mm. Relative to the neck thickness the head is large but less so than in extant apes (Table 2), suggesting a moderately wide range of movement at the hip joint (Ruff et al, 1989;Ward et al, 1993;MacLatchy et al, 2000). The articular surface of the head is preserved except for the posterior margin.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…We compare the hind limb elements of N. kerioi with those of early and middle Miocene hominoids from East Africa (Proconsul spp., Ugandapithecus major, Morotopithecus bishopi, Afropithecus turkanensis, Equatorius africanus). There are numerous studies of the hind limb functional morphology of these fossil hominoids and the basal catarrhine (Le Gros Clark and Leakey, 1951;Zapfe, 1960;McHenry and Corruccini, 1976;Conroy and Rose, 1983;Walker and Pickford, 1983;Langdon, 1986;Rose, 1986Rose, , 1993Rose et al, 1992Rose et al, , 1996Gebo and Simons, 1987;Leakey et al, 1988;Leakey and Walker, 1997;Ruff et al, 1989;Ward et al, 1993;McCrossin, 1994;McCrossin and Benefit, 1997;McCrossin et al, 1998;Benefit and McCrossin, 1995;Rafferty et al, 1995;Gebo et al, 1997;Walker, 1997;AnkelSimons et al, 1998;Gommery et al, 1998Gommery et al, , 2002Ward, 1998;MacLatchy et al, 2000;Madar et al, 2002). This comparison will clarify different/similar functional anatomies of the hind limb in these African Miocene hominoids.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Hind limb of the Nacholapithecus kerioi holotype and implications for its positional behavior

Nakatsukasa

Kunimatsu

Shimizu

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the definitive description of the hind limb elements of the Nacholapithecus kerioi holotype (KNM-BG 35250) from the middle Miocene of Kenya. Previously, it has been noted that the postcranial (i.e. the phalanges, spine, and shoulder girdle) anatomy of N. kerioi shows greater affinity to other early/middle Miocene African hominoids, collectively called 'non-specialized pronograde arboreal quadrupeds,' than to extant hominoids. This was also the case for the hind limb. However, N. kerioi exhibits a unique combination of postcranial characters that distinguish this species from other early/middle Miocene African hominoids. The femoral neck has a high angle, but is relatively short, though the adaptive meaning of this form is not readily understood. In the distal femur, the shape of the patellar surface and symmetry of the femoral condylar widths suggest that the knee was not typically abducted but assumed more variable movements and/or postures. Whereas the morphologies of the talocrural and intertarsal joints are generally similar to those of the other fossil hominoids, the tibial malleolus is extremely thick and asymmetry of the talar trochlea groove is more emphasized due to a more prominent lateral trochlear rim than in Proconsul and other African fossil hominoids. The distal foot segment is more elongated. The (non-hallucal) metatarsals appear relatively gracile due to the elongation. The proximal joints of these metatarsals are, nonetheless, large. Ligamentous attachments of the tarsal/metatarsal bones are generally well developed. The distal tarsal row, which is represented only by the medial cuneiform, though, is extremely large for the presumed body mass. In terms of function, the femur, ankle, and tarsal joints are interpreted behaviorally to represent a slow-moving arboreal quadruped. However, the foot of N. kerioi appears to be more specialized for inverted grasping and subvertical support use. All of these foot features are suggestive of a greater role for antipronograde activities in N. kerioi relative to other Miocene 'pronograde arboreal quadrupeds.'

show abstract

“…This angle is comparable to that in gibbons and spider monkeys (Rose et al, 1992;MacLatchy et al, 2000). The trochanteric crest is collapsed and closes the trochanteric fossa (Figure 2d).…”

Section: Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…crista trochanterica is observed on the posterior aspect of the neck (arrows in Figure 2e) similar to Proconsul and Morotopithecus (MacLatchy et al, 2000).…”

Section: Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hind limb of the Nacholapithecus kerioi holotype and implications for its positional behavior

Nakatsukasa

Kunimatsu

Shimizu

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The p/3 in the Songhor mandible is morphologically close to those of Ugandapithecus major, as well as to specimens of the new species Ugandapithecus legetetensis from Legetet, collected in the 1930's (Hopwood, 1933a, b). We adopt the identification of KNM SO 1112 as a small species of Ugandapithecus, which as a result reinforces the distinctiveness of Ugandapithecus from Proconsul, rather than weakening it as was concluded by MacLatchy & Pilbeam (1999), MacLatchy et al (2000) and MacLatchy & Rossie (2005b).…”

Section: Introductory Background To the Ugandapithecus Questionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Distinctiveness of Ugandapithecus from Proconsul

Pickford¹,

Sénut²,

Gommery³

et al. 2009

Estud. geol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decision to create the genus Ugandapithecus by Senut et al., 2000 has been criticised, either directly and in detail by MacLatchy & Rossie (2005b) who argued that it is a junior synonym of Proconsul, or indirectly without providing reasons, firstly by Harrison (2001) who wrote that he did not retain it as a genus distinct from Proconsul, and then by Suwa et al. (2007) who employed the name "Ugandapithecus" with inverted commas, implying some degree of doubt about its validity as a genus, but without providing details. More recently Harrison & Andrews (2009) have recognised the Meswa sample as a separate species but they argue that it should be maintained within Proconsul, despite the morphological differences that it has from other species of the genus. We here re-examine the question by comparing, on the one hand, the holotype maxilla of Proconsul africanus, the type species of the genus, with the upper dentition of Ugandapithecus major, and, on the other hand, the holotype mandible of Ugandapithecus major with the lower dentition and mandibles previously attributed to Proconsul africanus. We conclude that the differences between the known upper and lower dentitions of P. africanus and U. major are of such a degree that the two taxa warrant generic separation, and that the differences are not related to sexual dimorphism. Where Proconsul africanus differs from Ugandapithecus major, it approaches Proconsul nyanzae and Proconsul heseloni from Rusinga.Furthermore, the range of morphometric variation within the fossil samples previously attributed to Ugandapithecus major is so great that it far surpasses variation in any other hominoid, fossil or extant. Previously this great amount of variation was interpreted to mean that U. major was extremely dimorphic, with huge males and small females, but if this is true, then U. major would be unique among hominoids in having females in which the cheek teeth fall completely outside the range of variation of male cheek teeth. All other known male and female hominoid species possess cheek teeth whose ranges of variation overlap strongly. Bivariate plots of the teeth attributed to Ugandapithecus reveal three consistent non-overlapping clusters of points among the Early Miocene specimens, which we interpret to represent three distinct species. A fourth species of the genus, U. gitongai, was previously defined at the Middle Miocene site of Kipsaraman, Kenya. We conclude that Ugandapithecus was a lineage of great ape distinct from Proconsul, and its main evolutionary trend was an increase in dimensions from basal Early Miocene Ugandapithecus meswae (21.5-19 Ma) to late Early Miocene species Ugandapithecus legetetensis nov. sp. and Ugandapithecus major , and culminating in late Middle Miocene Ugandapithecus gitongai (ca. 14.5 Ma).

show abstract

Origin and Evolution of Human Postcranial Anatomy

Richmond¹,

Hatala²

2013

A Companion to Paleoanthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postcranial functional morphology of Morotopithecus bishopi, with implications for the evolution of modern ape locomotion

Cited by 127 publications

References 39 publications

Hind limb of the <i>Nacholapithecus kerioi</i> holotype and implications for its positional behavior

Hind limb of the <i>Nacholapithecus kerioi</i> holotype and implications for its positional behavior

Distinctiveness of <i>Ugandapithecus</i> from <i>Proconsul</i>

Origin and Evolution of Human Postcranial Anatomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About