The Messel Primates and Anthropoid Origins

A Summary of Adapiform Systematics and Phylogeny

“…However, several authors in the past thought that more than one family was needed. Two families, Notharctidae and Adapidae, were used several times after Stehlin [23], not always, however, with the same contents [18,[24][25][26][27]. Now the adapiforms have grown to more than 78-81 species and 30 genera, not including the eight or so controversial genera often incorporated with them (table 1).…”

Deep Time and the Search for Anthropoid Origins

“…However, with respect to omomyiforms, proponents of a Paratethyan hypothesis are necessarily among those who regard omomyiforms as too specialized to have given rise to anthro-poid primates. Instead, they note that cercamoniine adapiforms share a number of dental and postcranial similarities with early anthropoids (Franzen, 1994;Rasmussen, 1994;Simons, 1995b). However, the proposition that the origin of anthropoids is specifically rooted in the cercamoniines faces the same problem as other adapiformanthropoid origination scenarios, i.e., that many of the features shared between adapiforms and anthropoids are likely to be primitive for primates.…”

“…Researchers who favor an adapiform ancestry for anthropoids note that the dentition of omomyiforms makes them too specialized to be ancestral to anthropoids (Rasmussen, 1986; but see Covert and Williams, 1994), whereas cercamoniine adapiforms share a number of dental and postcranial similarities with early anthropoids (Franzen, 1988(Franzen, , 1994Rasmussen, 1994;Simons, 1995b). An adapiform ancestry for anthropoids has been criticized primarily on the grounds that some features shared between these groups are likely to be primitive for primates, while features shared by tarsiers and anthropoids (postorbital closure) and omomyiforms and anthropoids (morphology of the interorbital septum, and reduction in the olfactory apparatus) are more likely to be derived.…”

“…Rasmussen (1994) noted that the major difference between the upper molars of Periconodon and those of the anthropoid Proteopithecus, from the late Eocene of the Fayum, is that the pericone of Proteopithecus is a slight, noncuspate fold of the lingual enamel, whereas in Periconodon the cusp is distinctly inflated, a condition also seen in Apidium, an anthropoid from the early Oligocene of the Fayum (Rasmussen, 1994). Franzen (1994) identified the Notharctidae (Cercamoniinae plus Notharctinae) as the possible sister-group to the African anthropoids. Franzen (1988) cited the fact that in both groups, the centrale in the hand is separated from the uncinatum by the capitate on one side, while articulating with the trapezium on the other, although he was unsure whether this feature was plesiomorphic or apomorphic in the two groups.…”

The labyrinthine morphology of Pronycticebus gaudryi (Primates, Adapiformes)

“…Several decades ago, a few researchers had argued that extant anthropoids share an adapiform ancestor (Franzen 1994;Gingerich 1973Gingerich , 1975Gingerich , 1981Gingerich and Schoeninger 1977;Rasmussen 1986Rasmussen , 1990. Since then, phylogenetic analyses of primate relationships have favored the hypothesis that Adapiformes are stem strepsirrhines (see for instance Kay et al 1997;Marivaux et al 2005;Ni et al 2004;Ross et al 1998;Seiffert et al 2005).…”