Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 93, Issue 7, pp 329–333 | Cite as

Dietary characterization of the hominoid Khoratpithecus (Miocene of Thailand): evidence from dental topographic and microwear texture analyses

  • Gildas Merceron
  • Sarah Taylor
  • Robert Scott
  • Yaowalak Chaimanee
  • Jean-Jacques Jaeger
Short Communication

Abstract

The genus Khoratpithecus, a hominoid thought to be related to the orangutan lineage, is represented by two known fossil species K. chiangmuanensis and K. piriyai. Both were discovered in Southeast Asia (Thailand) and are dated to the Middle and Late Miocene, respectively. In this study, dental topographic and microwear texture analyses were used to examine molars from both of these species, with the goal of understanding their dietary preferences. Although sample sizes are small for Khoratpithecus, available data are compared to that collected for extant apes. Environmental evidence, such as botanical remains and sedimentological data, is also considered for comparisons with dietary reconstruction. Results from dental topographic analysis suggest that the two fossil species were better adapted to a diet of fruits than to one of leaves, much like the living orangutan or chimpanzee. Results from microwear texture analysis further support this, suggesting that Khoratpithecus preferred soft fruits to hard fruits or seeds. And finally, the botanical and sedimentological evidence point to environments for Khoratpithecus that would have been compatible with a fruit-eating species. Given the small sample sizes available for analysis, however, definitive judgments are not yet possible at this time.

References

  1. Alapagut B, Andrews P, Fortelius M, Kappelman J, Temizsoy I, Celebil H, Lindsay W (1996) A new specimen of Ankarapithecus meteai from the Sinap Formation of central Anatolia. Nature 382:349–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonis L, Bouvrain G, Geraads D, Koufos GD (1990) New hominid skull material from the Late Miocene of Macedonia in Northern Greece. Nature 345:712–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaimanee Y, Jolly D, Benammi M, Tafforeau P, Duzer D, Moussa I, Jaeger JJ (2003) A middle Miocene hominoid from Thailand and orangutan origins. Nature 422:61–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaimanee Y, Suteethorn V, Jintasakul P, Vidthayanon C, Marandat B, Jaeger JJ (2004) A new orangutan relative from the Late Miocene of Thailand. Nature 427:439–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisenberg JF (1989) Mammals of the Neotropics. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Elgart-Berry A (2004) Fractue toughness of Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) food plants. Am J Phys Anthropol 62:275–285Google Scholar
  7. Estrada A (1984) Resource use by howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata). Int J Primatol 5:105–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grine F, Ungar P, Teaford M (2002) Error rates in dental microwear quantification using SEM. Scanning 24:144–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mac Kinnon J (1974) The behavior and ecology of wild Orang-Utans (Pongo pygmaeus). Anim Behav 22:3–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Merceron G, Blondel C, Bonis L, Koufos GD, Viriot L (2005) A new dental microwear analysis: application to extant primates and Ouranopithecus macedoniensis (Late Miocene of Greece). PALAIOS 20:551–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neville MK, Glander KE, Braza F, Rylands AB (1988) The howling monkeys. In: Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB, Coimbra-Filho AF, de Fonseca GAB (eds) Ecology and behavior of neotropical primates. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, District of Columbia, pp. 349–453Google Scholar
  12. Scott RS, Ungar PS, Bergstrom TS, Brown CA, Grine FE, Teaford MF, Walker A (2005) Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins. Nature 436:693–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sokal RR, Rohlf JF (1998) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Teaford MF, Maas MC, Simons EL (1996) Dental microwear and microstructure in Early Oligocene primates from the Fayum, Egypt: implications for diet. Am J Phys Anthrop 101:527–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tutin CEG, Fernandez M (1993) Composition of the diet of chimpanzees and comparisons with that of sympatric lowland gorillas in the Lopé reserve, Gabon. Am J Phys Anthrop 30:195–211Google Scholar
  16. Ungar PS (1996) Dental microwear of European Miocene catarrhines: evidence for diets and tooth use. J Hum Evol 31:335–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ungar PS (2004) Dental topography and diets of Australopithecus afarensis and early Homo. J Hum Evol 46:605–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ungar PS, M’Kirera F (2003) A solution to the worn tooth conundrum in primate functional anatomy. P Natl Acad Sci 100:3874–3877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ungar PS, Taylor S (2005) Dental topography analysis: tooth wear and functions. Am J Phys Anthrop (Suppl) 40:210Google Scholar
  20. Ungar PS, Teaford MF, Kay RF (2004) Molar microwear and shearing crest development in Miocene catarrhines. Anthropologie 42:21–35Google Scholar
  21. Williamson EA, Tutin CEG, Rogers ME, Fernandez M (1990) Composition of the diet of lowland gorillas at Lopé in Gabon. Am J Phys Anthrop 21:265–277Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gildas Merceron
    • 1
    • 4
  • Sarah Taylor
    • 1
  • Robert Scott
    • 1
  • Yaowalak Chaimanee
    • 2
  • Jean-Jacques Jaeger
    • 3
  1. 1.Neogene Paleoecology Working Group, Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville,USA
  2. 2.Paleontology Section, Department of Mineral ResourcesBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Géobiologie, Biochronologie, et Paléontologie HumaineUMR CNRSPoitiersFrance
  4. 4.Biozentrum Grindel and Zoological MuseumUniversity HamburgHamburg,Germany

Personalised recommendations