The century of the past: One hundred years in the study of primate evolution

Fleagle, John G.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6505(2000)9:2<87::aid-evan3>3.0.co;2-n

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 117 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tan & Li (1999) suggest that the last common ancestor of tarsiers and strepsirrhines must have been trichromatic and diurnal. Tarsiers are generally agreed to be more closely related to anthropoids than to strepsirrhines (Purvis, 1995;Kay et al, 1997;Ross et al, 1998;Fleagle, 2000), so the last common ancestor of tarsiers and stepsirrhines was arguably the last common ancestor of all primates. The last common ancestor of all primates was nocturnal, as inferred from high degrees of orbital convergence characteristic of all primates (Allman, 1977;Pettigrew, 1978;Cartmill, 1992), as was the Eocene fossil group most closely related to tarsiers and anthropoids, the Omomyiformes (Kay & Cartmill, 1977;Beard et al, 1991; this study).…”

Section: The Evolution Of Activity Patterns and Chromatic Vision In Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of activity patterns and chromatic vision in primates: morphometrics, genetics and cladistics

Heesy

Ross

2001

Journal of Human Evolution

154

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Evolution Of Activity Patterns and Chromatic Vision In Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of activity patterns and chromatic vision in primates: morphometrics, genetics and cladistics

Heesy

Ross

2001

Journal of Human Evolution

154

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Finally, we compare facial shape in species representing two large, geographically separated, monophyletic primate groups: the Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World monkeys). The phylogenetic separation of these two groups dates to 35-40 million years ago by fossil and mitochondrial genomic evidence (Fleagle, 2000;Schrago and Russo, 2003). Morphologically these groups differ in certain craniofacial characteristics.…”

Section: Study 1 Facial Retrusion In Craniosynostosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental and evolutionary significance of the zygomatic bone

Richtsmeier

2015

The FASEB Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The zygomatic bone is derived evolutionarily from the orbital series. In most modern mammals the zygomatic bone forms a large part of the face and usually serves as a bridge that connects the facial skeleton to the neurocranium. Our aim is to provide information on the contribution of the zygomatic bone to variation in midfacial protrusion using three samples; humans, domesticated dogs, and monkeys. In each case, variation in midface protrusion is a heritable trait produced by one of three classes of transmission: localized dysmorphology associated with single gene dysfunction, selective breeding, or long-term evolution from a common ancestor. We hypothesize that the shape of the zygomatic bone reflects its role in stabilizing the connection between facial skeleton and neurocranium and consequently, changes in facial protrusion are more strongly reflected by the maxilla and premaxilla. Our geometric morphometric analyses support our hypothesis suggesting that the shape of the zygomatic bone has less to do with facial protrusion. By morphometrically dissecting the zygomatic bone we have determined a degree of modularity among parts of the midfacial skeleton suggesting that these components have the ability to vary independently and thus can evolve differentially. From these purely morphometric data, we propose that the neural crest cells that are fated to contribute to the zygomatic bone experience developmental cues that distinguish them from the maxilla and premaxilla. The spatiotemporal and molecular identity of the cues that impart zygoma progenitors with their identity remains an open question that will require alternative data sets.

show abstract

“…Finally, we compare facial shape in species representing two large, geographically separated, monophyletic primate groups: the Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World monkeys). The phylogenetic separation of these two groups dates to ∼35–40 million years ago by fossil and mitochondrial genomic evidence (Fleagle, ; Schrago and Russo, ). Morphologically these groups differ in certain craniofacial characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental andEvolutionarySignificance of theZygomaticBone

Heuzé

Kawasaki

Schwarz

et al. 2016

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The zygomatic bone is derived evolutionarily from the orbital series. In most modern mammals the zygomatic bone forms a large part of the face and usually serves as a bridge that connects the facial skeleton to the neurocranium. Our aim is to provide information on the contribution of the zygomatic bone to variation in midfacial protrusion using three samples; humans, domesticated dogs, and monkeys. In each case, variation in midface protrusion is a heritable trait produced by one of three classes of transmission: localized dysmorphology associated with single gene dysfunction, selective breeding, or long‐term evolution from a common ancestor. We hypothesize that the shape of the zygomatic bone reflects its role in stabilizing the connection between facial skeleton and neurocranium and consequently, changes in facial protrusion are more strongly reflected by the maxilla and premaxilla. Our geometric morphometric analyses support our hypothesis suggesting that the shape of the zygomatic bone has less to do with facial protrusion. By morphometrically dissecting the zygomatic bone we have determined a degree of modularity among parts of the midfacial skeleton suggesting that these components have the ability to vary independently and thus can evolve differentially. From these purely morphometric data, we propose that the neural crest cells that are fated to contribute to the zygomatic bone experience developmental cues that distinguish them from the maxilla and premaxilla. The spatiotemporal and molecular identity of the cues that impart zygoma progenitors with their identity remains an open question that will require alternative data sets. Anat Rec, 299:1616–1630, 2016. © 2016 The Authors The Anatomical Record Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

The century of the past: One hundred years in the study of primate evolution

Cited by 9 publications

References 117 publications

Evolution of activity patterns and chromatic vision in primates: morphometrics, genetics and cladistics

Evolution of activity patterns and chromatic vision in primates: morphometrics, genetics and cladistics

Developmental and evolutionary significance of the zygomatic bone

Developmental andEvolutionarySignificance of theZygomaticBone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About