4.3 Article

A reassessment of living hominoid postcranial variability: implications for ape evolution

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 441-464

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.09.001

关键词

morphometrics; cladistic analysis; principal components analysis; cluster analysis; postcranial parallelism; suspensory locomotion; Ateles; miocene apes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In an analysis of hominoid postcranial variation, 'Evol. Anthrop. 6 (1998) 87' argued that many purportedly unique features of the hominoid postcranium are actually much more variable than previously reported and in many instances overlap with both suspensory (Ateles) and non-suspensory primates. Based on these results, it was concluded that parallelism in the living ape postcranium was a plausible and even likely possibility given the Miocene hominoid postcranial record. However, this analysis did not distinguish whether within-hominoid variability or overlap with non-hominoids involved one or all ape taxa, a distinction which has potentially important effects on the interpretation of results. To address this issue, primate postcranial morphometric data from the trunk and forelimb were reanalyzed using three techniques: cladistic analysis, principle components analysis, and cluster analysis. Results reveal that these postcranial characters distinguish not only suspensory and quadrupedal primates but also discriminate hominoids and Ateles from all other taxa, great apes from lesser apes and Ateles, cercopithecines from colobines, and cercopithecoids from platyrrhines. The majority of hominoid variability and overlap with Ateles occurs with Hylobates humeral head and shoulder joint characters related to brachiation. This suggests that Hylobates' specializations may skew analyses of hominoid postcranial uniqueness and variability, and that great apes are relatively similar in their postcranium. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据