Encephalization and Obstetrics in Primates with Particular Reference to Human Evolution

  • Walter Leutenegger


The existence of differences in pelvic morphology between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and modern humans is well documented (for a recent review see McHenry and Temerin, 1979). Pelvic remodeling during the evolution of the genus Homo has elicited two different interpretations: (1) it has been viewed as a reflection of increased efficiency in bipedalism (McHenry, 1975a; Zihlman, 1978), and (2) it has been interpreted in terms of rapid encephalization that would have generated selection pressure to increase birth canal dimensions (Lovejoy et al., 1973; Lovejoy, 1974, 1975, 1978). When the second hypothesis is scrutinized, the fossil evidence unambiguously indicates that the increase in brain size during human evolution was extraordinary both in magnitude and in rate (Pilbeam and Gould, 1974; Passingham, 1975; Sacher, 1975). This picture of encephalization from H. habilis to H. erectus to H. sapiens is based on estimated cranial capacities of a static series of adults. Obstetrical constraints and thus selection pressures on the pelvis are not, however, dependent on adult cranial dimensions but on those of the fetal cranium at term relative to birth canal dimensions. Moreover, evidence of differences between primate species in the growth rate of the brain and/or in the length of development during ontogeny (Schultz, 1941, 1956; Sacher and Staffeldt, 1974; Passingham, 1975) suggests that encephalization of adults cannot be expected to be proportionate to that of the neonate or to that of individuals at any particular developmental stage.


Squirrel Monkey Maternal Weight Howler Monkey Early Hominid Sagittal Diameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bauchot, R., and Stephan, H., 1969, Encéphalisation et niveau évolutif chez les simiens. Mammalia, 30:235–275.Google Scholar
  2. Biegert, J., 1957, Der Formwandel des Primatenschädels und seine Beziehungen zur ontogenetischen Entwicklung und den phylogenetischen Spezialisationen der Kopforgane. Morph. Jb., 98:77–199.Google Scholar
  3. Biegert, J., 1963. The evaluation of characteristics of the skull, hands, and feet for primate taxonomy. In, Classification and Human Evolution, S. L. Washburn, ed., Aldine, Chicago, pp. 116–145.Google Scholar
  4. Biegert, J., and Maurer, R., 1972, Rumpfskelettlänge, Allometrien und Körperproportionen bei catarrhinen Primaten. Folia Primatol., 17:142–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowden, D., Winter, P., and Ploog, D., 1967, Pregnancy and delivery behavior in the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus) and other primates. Folia Primatol., 5:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt, E.M., and Mitchell, G., 1971. Parturition in primates: behavior related to birth. In, Primate Behavior, Developments in Field and Laboratory Research, vol. 2, L.A. Rosenblum, ed., Academic Press, New York, pp. 177–223.Google Scholar
  7. Christen, A., 1974, Fortpflanzungsbiologie und Verhalten bei Cebuella pygmaea und Tamarin tamarin (Primates, Platyrrhina, Callithricidae). Z. Tierpsychol., Suppl., 14:1–80.Google Scholar
  8. Doyle, G.A., 1979. Development of behavior in prosimians with special reference to the lesser bushbaby, Galago senegalensis moholi. In, The Study of Prosimian Behavior, G.A. Doyle and R.D. Martin, eds., Academic Press, London, pp. 157–206.Google Scholar
  9. Gillman, J. and Gilbert, C., 1946, The reproductive cycle of the chacma baboon (Papio ursinus) with special reference to the problem of menstrual irregularities as assessed by the behavior of the sex skin. S. Afr. J. Med. Sci. Biol., Suppl., 11:1–54.Google Scholar
  10. Goss, C.M., Popejoy, L.T.II, Fusiler, J.L., and Smith, T.M., 1968. Observations on the relationship between embryological development, time of conception, and gestation. In, The Squirrel Monkey, L.A. Rosenblum and R.W. Cooper, eds., Academic Press, New York, pp. 171–191.Google Scholar
  11. Gould, S.J., 1975, Allometry in primates, with emphasis on scaling and the evolution of the brain. Contrib. Primatol., 5:244–292.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, S.J., 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Hemmer, H., 1971. Beitrag zur Erfassung der progressiven Cephalisation bei Primaten. In, Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Primatol, vol. 1, J. Biegert and W. Leutenegger, eds., Karger, Basel, pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
  14. Hopf, A., 1967, Notes on pregnancy, delivery and infant survival in captive squirrel monkeys. Primates, 8:323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huggett, A. St G., and Widdas, W.F., 1951, The relationship between mammalian foetal weight and conception age. J. Physiol. Lond., 114:306–317.Google Scholar
  16. Leutenegger, W., 1970a, Das Becken der rezenten Primaten. Morph. Jb., 115:1–101.Google Scholar
  17. Leutenegger, W., 1970b, Beziehungen zwischen der Neugeborenengrösse und dem Sexualdimorphismus am Becken bei simischen Primaten. Folia Primatol., 12:224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leutenegger, W., 1972, Newborn size and pelvic dimensions in Australopithecus. Nature, 240:568–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leutenegger, W., 1973, Maternal-fetal weight relationships in primates. Folia Primatol., 20:280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leutenegger, W., 1974, Functional aspects of pelvic morphology in simian primates. J. Hum. Evol., 3:207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leutenegger, W., 1976, Allometry of neonatal size in eutherian mammals. Nature, 263:229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leutenegger, W., 1977, A functional interpretation of the sacrum of Australopithecus africanus. S. Afr. J. Sci., 73:308–310.Google Scholar
  23. Leutenegger, W., 1979, Evolution of litter size in primates. Am. Nat., 114:525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lovejoy, C.O., 1974, The gait of australopithecines. Yrbk. Phys. Anthrop., 17:147–161.Google Scholar
  25. Lovejoy, C.O., 1975. Biomechanical perspectives on the lower limb of early hominids. In, Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution, R.H. Tuttle, ed., Mouton, The Hague, pp. 291–326.Google Scholar
  26. Lovejoy, C.O., 1978. A biomechanical review of the locomotor diversity of early hominids, in: Early Hominids of Africa, C.J. Jolly, ed., Duckworth, London, pp. 403–429.Google Scholar
  27. Lovejoy, C.O., 1979. A reconstruction of the pelvis of AL-288 (Hadar Formation, Ethiopia). Paper presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the Am. Ass. Phys. Anthrop., San Francisco, Calif.Google Scholar
  28. Lovejoy, C.O., Heiple, K.G., and Burstein, A.H., 1973, The gait of Australopithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 38:757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McHenry, H.M., 1975a, Biomechanical interpretation of the early hominid hip. J. Hum. Evol., 4:343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McHenry, H.M., 1975b, Fossils and the mosaic nature of human evolution. Science, 190:425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McHenry, H.M., 1975c, Fossil hominid body weight and brain size. Nature, 254:686–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McHenry, H.M. and L.A. Temerin, 1979, The evolution of hominid bipedalism; evidence from the fossil record. Yrbk. Phys. Anthrop., 22:105–131.Google Scholar
  33. Olivier, A. and H. Pineau, 1958, Croissance prénatale comparée du macaque et de l’homme. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 246:1292–1293.Google Scholar
  34. Passingham, R.E., 1975, Changes in the size and organisation of the brain in man and his ancestors. Brain Behav. Evol., 11:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips, I.R., 1976, The reproductive potential of the common cotton-eared marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) in captivity. J. Med. Primatol., 5:49–55.Google Scholar
  36. Pilbeam, D. and Gould, S.J., 1974, Size and scaling in human evolution. Science, 186:892–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Portmann, A., 1941, Die Tragzeiten der Primaten und die Dauer der Schwangerschaft beim Menschen: ein Problem der vergleichenden Biologie. Rev. Suisse Zool., 48:511–518.Google Scholar
  38. Portmann, A., 1945, Die Ontogenese des Menschen als Problem der Evolutionsforschung. Verh. Schweiz. Naturforsch. Ges., 125:44–53.Google Scholar
  39. Sacher, G.A., 1975. Maturation and longevity in relation to cranial capacity in hominid evolution. In, Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution, R.H. Tuttle, ed., Mouton, The Hague, pp. 417–441.Google Scholar
  40. Sacher, G.A., and Staffeidt, E.F., 1974, Relation of gestation time to brain weight for placental mammals: implications for the theory of vertebrate growth. Am. Nat., 108:593–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schultz, A.H., 1941, The relative size of the cranial capacity in primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 28:273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schultz, A.H, 1949, Sex differences in the pelves of primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 7:401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schultz, A.H., 1956. Postembryonic age changes, in: Primatologia, vol. 1, H. Hofer, A.H. Schultz and D. Starck, eds., Karger, Basel, pp. 887–964.Google Scholar
  44. Schultz, A.H., 1969. The Life of Primates, Universe Books, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Zihlman, A., 1978. Interpretations of early hominid locomotion. In, Early Hominids in Africa, C.J. Jolly, ed., Duckworth, London, pp. 361–377.Google Scholar
  46. Zuckerman, S., Ashton, E.H., Flinn, R.M., Oxnard, C.E., and Spence, T.F., 1973, Some locomotor features of the pelvic girdle in primates. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond., 33:71–165.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Leutenegger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations