International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 439–469 | Cite as

The phylogenetic position ofMahgarita stevensi: protoanthropoid or lemuroid?

  • D. Tab Rasmussen
Article

Abstract

This comparative study of the cranial and dental morphology ofMahgarita stevensi, which includes description of new fossil material, is designed to address hypotheses concerning the phylogenetic position ofMahgarita with respect to the Anthropoidea and tooth-combed prosimians (Lemuriformes, including Lorisoidea).Mahgarita shares with Oligocene anthropoids and primitive platyrrhines a complex assemblage of structural features that do not occur together in any tooth-combed prosimians; they include a large promontory canal and reduced or absent stapedial canal, a pneumatized petromastoid, a lateral transverse intrabullar septum and probable absence of a free annular ectotympanic, synostosed mandibular symphysis with a transverse torus, a short deep maxilla, maxillomaxillary contact on the inferior orbital margin, an upper canine with a mesial groove, a pronounced nasal spine of the palatine bone, and detailed similarities in occlusal features of the upper molars and other teeth.Mahgarita shares with tooth-combed prosimians several primitive euprimate characters, such as lack of postorbital closure and absence of intrabullar trabeculae. Previous conclusions thatMahgarita is related closely to living strepsirhines were based on a small number of primitive, gradistic features. Cranial characters that have been presented in favor of a tarsiiform-anthropoid clade are analyzed with respect toMahgarita and primitive anthropoids. The results suggest that, among known prosimians,Mahgarita is the one most closely related to the Anthropoidea.

Key Words

primate evolution cranial morphology Adapidae Lemuriformes Anthropoidea Haplorhini 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beard, K. C. (1988). The phylogenetic significance of strepsirhinism in Paleogene primates.Int. J. Primatol. 9: 83–96.Google Scholar
  2. Beard, K. C., Dagosto, M., Gebo, D. L., and Godinot, M. (1988). Interrelationships among primate higher taxa.Nature 331: 712–714.Google Scholar
  3. Beecher, R. M. (1977). Function and fusion at the mandibular symphysis.Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 47: 325–336.Google Scholar
  4. Beecher, R. M. (1979). Functional significance of the mandibular symphysis.J. Morphol. 159: 117–130.Google Scholar
  5. Beecher, R. M. (1983). Evolution of the mandibular symphysis in Notharctinae (Adapidae, Primates).Int. J. Primatol. 4: 99–112.Google Scholar
  6. Cavendar, J. A. (1978). Taxonomy with confidence.Math. Biosci. 40: 99–112.Google Scholar
  7. Cavendar, J. A. (1980). Tests of phylogenetic hypotheses under generalized models.Math. Biosci. 54: 217–229.Google Scholar
  8. Felsenstein, J. (1982). Numerical methods for inferring evolutionary trees.Q. Rev. Biol. 57: 379–404.Google Scholar
  9. Fleagle, J. G., and Bown, T. M. (1983). New primate fossils from late Oligocene (Colhuehuapian) localities of Chubut Province, Argentina.Folia Primatol. 41: 240–266.Google Scholar
  10. Fleagle, J. G., and Kay, R. F. (1987). The phyletic position of the Parapithecidae.J. Hum. Evol. 16: 383–532.Google Scholar
  11. Franzen, J. L. (1987). Ein neuer Primate aus dem Mitteleozan der Grube Messel (Deutschland, S-Hessen).Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 91: 151–187.Google Scholar
  12. Gingerich, P. D. (1975). A new genus of Adapidae (Mammalia: Primates) from the late Eocene of southern France, and its significance for the origin of higher primates.Contrib. Mus. Paleontol. Univ. Mich. 24: 163–170.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, W. K. (1915). On the classification and phylogeny of the Lemuroidea.Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 26: 426–446.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, T. (1987). The phylogenetic relationships of the early catarrhine primates: A review of the current evidence.J. Hum. Evol. 16: 41–80.Google Scholar
  15. Le Gros Clark, W. E. (1959).The Antecedants of Man: An Introduction to the Evolution of the Primates, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  16. MacPhee, R. D. E., and Cartmill, M. (1986). Basicranial structures and primate systematics. In Swindler, D. R., and Erwin, J. (eds.),Comparative Primate Biology, Vol. 1. Systematics, Evolution, and Anatomy, Liss, New York, pp. 219–276.Google Scholar
  17. Mayr, E. (1981). Biological classification: Toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies.Science 214: 510–516.Google Scholar
  18. Meacham, C. A. (1981). A manual method for character compatibility analysis.Taxon 30: 591–600.Google Scholar
  19. Rasmussen, D. T. (1986). Anthropoid origins: A possible solution to the Adapidae-Omomyidae paradox.J. Hum. Evol. 15: 1–12.Google Scholar
  20. Rasmussen, D. T., and Simons, E. L. (1988). New specimens ofOligopithecus savagei, early Oligocene primate from Egypt.Folia Primatol. 51: 182–208.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenberger, A. L., Strasser, E., and Delson, E. (1985). Anterior dention ofNotharctus and the adapid-anthropoid hypothesis.Folia Primatol. 44: 15–39.Google Scholar
  22. Schwartz, J. H., and Tattersall, I. (1987). Tarsiers, adapids and the integrity of Strepsirhini.J. Hum. Evol. 16: 23–40.Google Scholar
  23. Simons, E. L. (1965). New fossil apes from Egypt and the initial differentiation of Hominoidea.Nature 205: 135–139.Google Scholar
  24. Simons, E. L. (1987). New faces ofAegyptopithecus from the Oligocene of Egypt.J. Hum. Evol. 16: 273–289.Google Scholar
  25. Simons, E. L. (1989). Description of two genera and species of late Eocene Anthropoidea from Egypt.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 9956–9960.Google Scholar
  26. Simons, E. L., and Rasmussen, D. T. (1989). Cranial morphology ofAegyptopithecus andTarsius and the question of the tarsier-anthropoidean clade.Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 79: 1–23.Google Scholar
  27. Swofford, D. L. (1985).PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.Google Scholar
  28. Szalay, F. S., and Delson, E. (1979).Evolutionary History of the Primates. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Szalay, F. S., Rosenberger, A. L., and Dagosto, M. (1987). Diagnosis and differentiation of the Order Primates.Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 30: 75–105.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson, J. A. (1986). Stratigraphic occurrence and correlation of early Tertiary vertebrate faunas, Trans-Pecos Texas: Agua Fria-Green Valley areas.J. Vert. Paleontol. 6: 350–373.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, J. A., and Stevens, M. S. (1986). Fossil vertebrates from the latest Eocene, Skyline channels, Trans-Pecos Texas.Contrib. Geol. Univ. Wyo. Spec. Pap. 3: 221–235.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, J. A., and Szalay, F. S. (1976). New adapid primate of European affinities from Texas.Folia Primatol. 25: 294–312.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Tab Rasmussen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations