Fossil Find Sparks Debate on Primate Origins

October 22, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Bruce Bower, Science News

Pieces of ancient primates can still pack a surprising punch. Consider a 37-million-year-old lower jaw that still sports many of its teeth and was found in Africa by paleontologist Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York and his colleagues. This newly unearthed creature had skeletal features that resembled those of higher primates, but it didn’t belong to the lineage that led to higher primates, Seiffert’s team reports in the Oct. 22 Nature.

Seiffert’s group assigns its fossil discovery to a new genus and species, Afradapis longicristatus. The work follows this summer’s highly publicized announcement of another primate find: The 47-million-year-old primate Darwinius is regarded by some as filling in an important gap in human evolution (SN: 6/20/09, p. 8). But Seiffert says Darwinius belongs to the same group as his team’s fossil: adapiforms, a separate and now-extinct primate group.

“It is only with the discovery of Afradapis that we have the first strong evidence indicating that adapiform primates were common at that time and place, successfully living alongside primitive anthropoids in Africa,” Seiffert says.

Higher primates include anthropoids — monkeys, apes, humans and their fossil ancestors. The ancient, lemur-like Afradapis turned up in a part of Egypt’s Fayum desert that has already yielded anthropoid fossils dating from between 37 million and 32 million years ago.

Afradapis weighed between about 2.2 kilograms and 3.3 kilograms (4.8 pounds and 7.2 pounds), the researchers estimate. Most primates from more than 30 million years ago weighed considerably less than that. Darwinius tipped the scales at between 650 grams and 900 grams (3.2 ounces and 6.3 ounces).

Afradapis and other adapiforms independently evolved some traits that later appeared in anthropoids, probably because they competed with anthropoids for access to fruit in dense African forests, Seiffert hypothesizes.

Afradapis displays several jaw and tooth characteristics that began to appear in anthropoids about 30 million years ago, Seiffert says. These traits include the absence of second premolar teeth and the presence of a lower third premolar tooth with a honing surface for a long upper canine, a thick jaw and full fusion of the jaw’s right and left halves.

Large cheek teeth allowed Afradapis to chew tough fibers and eat lots of leaves, he says. But the ancient primate could also eat fruit, pitting it against African anthropoids from the same time that mainly consumed fruit and insects, in Seiffert’s view.

But adapiforms were probably not capable of eating enough fruit to have been dietary rivals of ancient anthropoids, counters paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. Beard doubts that Afradapis’ unusually large body and teeth specialized for leaf eating put it in an ecological league of its own, he says.

Beard leads a team that has excavated 40-million-year-old Asian fossils that they regard as the oldest known anthropoids (SN: 4/16/94, p. 245). In a computerized reconstruction of evolutionary relationships among 117 living and extinct primates — based on measurements of 360 skeletal features — Seiffert’s group also concludes that the oldest known anthropoids lived in Asia.

Most importantly, Beard says, Seiffert’s team demonstrates that “Darwinius was a fairly generic adapiform primate only distantly related to living and fossil anthropoids.”

Paleontologist Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, a member of the team that analyzed the Darwinius fossil, entirely rejects Seiffert’s conclusions and regards Darwinius as a possible anthropoid precursor. Afradapis’ jaw looks much like that of a male monkey, not a lemur, thus putting it in a primate group that led directly to anthropoids, Gingerich contends.

Darwinius shows other anthropoid-like traits, he says, including flat front teeth and interlocking canines.

Seiffert’s proposal that adapiforms evolved traits that mirrored those of anthropoids “seems implausible to me,” Gingerich says.

Tags:
evolution,
science,
animals

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

If your wife's baby is type o and yours and hers too, there is a 99% chance that that is your baby. It's called Mendelian theory. It's part of the most complex thing called evolution. Please don't throw evolution out of the window like a piece of rag that's of no use to anyone.

emmanuel hernandez 12:04PM October 23, 2009

"the scientific explanation is "you do not understand how evolution works.""

Take that!

Dreamr of CA 3:44PM October 22, 2009

Excuse me "f dat"! You throw that word "gay" around too easily. What kind of response is that? If that is the most intelligent thing you can say in response to an article of this nature then go back to the bowling alley and drink a few more Schlitz beers and hopefully you'll end up a fossil sooner than later.

David Bronx of NY 2:58PM October 22, 2009

National Science Foundation

NSF

Science of Spatial Learning

Center seeks to transform teaching practices.

Studying Carbon in Rivers

Researcher explores physical, chemical and biological interactions.

Challenge: Quantum Computers

CAREER awardee focuses on what they can and cannot do.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement