排序方式： 共有9条查询结果，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
新疆准噶尔盆地北缘Pliopithecus的发现(英文) 总被引：4，自引：2，他引：4
1997和 1 998年的野外工作期间 ,在新疆准噶尔盆地北缘铁尔斯哈巴合中中新世哈拉玛盖组的底部第二砂层中发现了 4枚上猿牙齿。两枚显然是属于同一个体的左m2和m3发现于 980 1 7地点 ,地理坐标为 46°39.997′N ,88°30 .41 2′E。另一枚左下第一门齿和左上第四前臼齿产自该地点附近的同一砂层中。这是在中国境内、也是亚洲的第二个上猿化石地点。该 4枚牙齿中 ,下门齿可能与m2、m3属同一个种。m2刚开始经受磨蚀 ,m3则刚萌出齿槽。它们不同于所有已知种 (P .zhanxiangi、P .vindobonensis、P .antiquus、P .platyodon和P .priensis)的最明显的特征是在唇侧有一个很深的、间于下原尖和下次尖的漏斗状小坑。该坑由前次脊 (prehypocristid)、下次尖前方的斜脊的唇侧分支和沿下原尖唇侧壁向下延伸的一条脊所围成。此外 ,m3稍短于m2。在其他形态特征方面 ,新疆的种又以m2和m3尺寸较小、齿尖较低、齿脊较锐、近中凹和远中凹发育、釉面褶皱和唇侧齿带很发育而不同于我国宁夏同心的Pliopithecuszhanxiangi;以m2和m3的冠面较短宽且有很发育的上猿三角与P .vindobonensis区分 ;其m2和m3的尺寸明显大于P .antiquus。但在尺寸和其他形态上与P .platyodon很相似。铁尔斯哈巴合的m2、m3和下门齿应代表上猿属内的一个新? 相似文献
2.
The taxonomic affinities of the Eppelsheim femur, known as Paidopithex, have been unclear for more than a century. Over the years, due to similarities with Pliopithecus, some authors have considered it a large pliopithecid, while others refer to it as Dryopithecus. The issue could not be resolved, because no definitive Dryopithecus femora were available. With the discovery of the Dryopithecus laietanus skeleton from Can Llobateres (CLl 18800), it has become possible to test the attribution of the Eppelsheim femur to Dryopithecus on the basis of direct morphological and metrical comparisons. By means of allometric techniques, we show that the Eppelsheim and D. laietanus femora fit different hindlimb morphologies with regard to relative length and relative head/neck size, with Paidopithex significantly differing from Dryopithecus, but more closely resembling Pliopithecus. Paidopithex also differs from Dryopithecus in other important aspects, such as its lower neck/shaft angle, lack of elevation of the femoral head above the greater trochanter, more posteriorly oriented lesser trochanter, and proximal shaft diameter thicker anteroposteriorly than mediolaterally. In these features, Paidopithex most closely resembles Pliopithecus in spite of differences in body mass (ca. 22 kg vs. ca. 10 kg, respectively). These features suggest that Paidopithex used a primitive locomotor pattern associated with arboreal quadrupedalism, instead of the more derived pattern displayed by Dryopithecus. Currently available evidence confirms that the attribution of Paidopithex to Dryopithecus can be rejected. Paidopithex could be a large and otherwise unknown pliopithecid, but the possibility cannot be ruled out that it represents a third kind of catarrhine. 相似文献
3.
Micropithecus clarki, from Miocene sediments of Napak, Uganda, is the smallest known hominoid primate, living or fossil. In facial morphology it is very similar to extant gibbons. Dentally, it is most similar to the small apes from the Miocene of Kenya, Dendropithecus and Limnopithecus. All of the apes from the early Miocene of East Africa seem to represent a single phyletic group that could be easily derived from the Oligocene apes known from the Fayum of Egypt. Pliopithecus from the Miocene of Europe is more closely allied with the Oligocene radiation than with the later East African radiation. 相似文献
4.
Brian G. Richmond John G. Fleagle John Kappelman Carl C. Swisher 《American journal of physical anthropology》1998,105(3):257-277
The first known fossil ape from the early-middle Miocene of Fejej, Ethiopia, is described here. The specimen, FJ-18SB-68, is a partial ulna from a locality dated by 40Ar/39Ar and paleomagnetic methods to a minimum age of 16.18 MYA. Compared to a variety of extant and fossil ulnae, FJ-18SB-68 is most similar to Turkanapithecus, Proconsul, and Pliopithecus, and appears to have been an arboreal quadruped with substantial forearm rotational mobility. Among the extant ulnae, canonical variates analysis successfully discriminates platyrrhines from catarrhines and within the latter, cercopithecoids from hominoids. Basal catarrhines (e.g., Aegyptopithecus) are platyrrhine-like in their morphology. Two basic trends appear to evolve from this generalized template: one with less mobile and more habitually pronated forearms, as seen in living and fossil cercopithecoids (including Victoriapithecus and Paracolobus), and another with greater forearm rotational mobility in fossil and modern hominoids. Primitive Miocene apes, including Proconsul, Turkanapithecus, and FJ-18SB-68, share with extant hominoids a more laterally positioned and laterally facing radial notch and an incipient trochlear keel. This morphology, along with a large insertion area for m. brachialis, suggests a departure from the more habitually pronated hand posture of monkeys and may indicate greater climbing abilities in these arboreally quadrupedal apes. Later Miocene apes, such as Oreopithecus and Dryopithecus share additional morphological features with hominoids, indicating considerable suspensory and climbing capabilities. Am J Phys Anthropol 105:257–277, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc. 相似文献
5.
Laccopithecus robustus is a siamang-sized fossil ape from the Miocene site of Lufeng, China. The species is known from a partial cranium, numerous mandibles, and scores of isolated teeth. This species shows striking dental similarities to Pliopithecus from the Miocene of Europe and a number of cranial similarities to extant gibbons. Laccopithecus differs from extant gibbons and resembles other fossil and extant apes in showing marked sexual dimorphism in the size and shape of the canines and anterior lower premolars. Evidence for sexual differences in either the size or shape of other teeth is less clear. There is some evidence for a sexual size dimorphism based on the variability of molar teeth. 相似文献
6.
The paper deals with the Laccopithecus robustus eranium (PA 860) which was collected from Lufeng,Yunnan in 1981.<br>The cranium consists of most part of facial region,a part of the frontal and the maxilla with all teeth in situ except the right lateral incisor. The posterior part of the cranium is missing.<br>The facial part of the left side is distorted due to compression in the process of fossilization while that of the right side is well-preserved.<br>The upper face and nasals are short and broad. The interorbital pillar is broad and flat.<br>The temporal ridges start from the middle part of the supra-orbital ridges on trigonum frontale,which are similar to that of Pliopithecus and Hylobates. Seven indices,the snout breadth index,snout length index,facial depth index,incisor breadth index,palatal breadth index,nasal breadth index,orbital breadth index,were calculated. The first four fall within the range of Pliopithecus and the rest three,of Hylobates ete.<br>The P4 has developed lingual cingulum. Judging from the canines,PA 860 cranium is of a male individual.<br>Its facial region resembles that of H. leuciscus in size. However,its dentition is larger than both H. leuciscus and other extant hylobatids in proportion of its face. Preliminary observation of PA 860 cranium indicates that it is similar to Pliopithecus on the one hand and to Hylobates on the other.<br>As Laccopithecus was found in Yunnan and similar to H. concolor in some features,it is possible that Hylobates evolved from Laccopithecus robustus. In addition,the upper molars of Dionysopithecus shuangouensis are morphologically similar to those of H. leuciscus from Java. All facts as well as the presence of Kansupithecus and Amphipithecus give a clue to the Asian origin of the extant hylobatids. 相似文献
7.
8.
本文通过粗壮池猿头骨新材料的初步观察得出,它与欧洲上猿的头骨比较接近,而在某些特征上又与现生长臂猿相似。这与牙齿和颌骨研究的结果是一致的。本文还对亚洲第三纪长臂猿类与其他同时代长臂猿类的关系作了初步的探讨,并对池猿的系统关系作了论述。 相似文献
9.
Qiu Zhanxiang 《人类学学报》1986,5(03):201
The subject of the present paper, a left M2 of Pliopithecus, BPV 261 (housed in Beijing Natural History Museum) , was purchased, purely by chance, in the early spring of 1985 from a \"dragon-bone\" digger in situ, where he had successfully found teeth and bones of Platybclodon, Listriodon and Stephanocemas. The locality, called Maerzuizigou, lies near the village Dingjiaergou, which is 18 km northeast to Tongxin, the county center. Its geographie position is indicated in text-figure 1.<br>From the same locality, and chiefly frorn the surrounding area, more materials were collected by the field parties of both the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology and Beijing Natural History Museum during the last several years. Although the study of the materials is still under way and the geological setting of the area concerned is still being prepared, the geological age of the area in general is clear: It is a little older than the typical Tung-gur faunal age, probably comparable to MN 6 or 7 in the European mammalian biochronology.<br>During the first half of the present century there were some reports on the possible oceurrence of pliopithecine material in North China. Schlosser (1924) first reported an M3 under the name of Pliopithecus posthumus. However, the tooth is too heavily worn to warrant its taxonomic position as proposed by M. Sehlosser. Recently Ginsburg and Mein (1980) proposed to refer it to a gibbon genus: Krishnapithecus. Later Bohlin (1946) deseribed some very badly preserved specimens and erected for them a new genus, Kansupithecus (without designation of species) , allegedly belonging to the pliopithecine group. Because of their poor state of preservation (a practically edentulous lower jaw fragment and some tooth splits) , again, their true nature is uncertain. Szalay and Delson (1979) provisionally referred them to tPliopithecidae incerta sedis. The Tongxin material, though consisting of only one tooth, represents therefore the first authentie record of the genus in China. In addition, the preservation of the tooth is excellent, the erown features are all clearly demonstrated.<br>A cursory comparison is enough to reveal that our Tongxin specimen conforms very well with Hürzeler’s diagrammatie presentation of the pliopithecine lower molars based on G?riach material (Hürzeler, 1954, fig. 14) . The features our M2 has in common with Hürzeler’s diagram are the following: 1. The labial wall of the tooth is marked'y slan- ting, so that the labial eusps approximate the lingual ones strongly at the top of the erown. 2. The trigonid is large. basin-shaped. and blocked posteriorly by a well develop- ed metalophid. 3. The talonid eonsists of three cusps: hypoconid, entoconid and hypoco- nulid, without indication of the sixth cusp. 4. The distance between the hypo- and entoconid is longer than that between the proto- and metaconid. 5. The metastylid is tiny, but still discernible. 6. There is a \"hinter Hauptleiste\" (Remane's term) connecting the hypoeonulid and entoconid. 7. There is a \"pliopithecine triangle\", which is typical for all the members of the group. 8. There is a weak connection between the hypoconid and metaconid on the bottom of the talonid. 9. The labial eingulum is well developed, interrupted only at the midpoint. The enumeration of these characters in common leaves no room for doubt that the Tongxin specimen should refer to the genus Pliopithecus.<br>The systematies of the pliopithecine group in now rather complicated. Ginshurg and Mein (1980) proposed to split Pliopithecidae into two subfamilies: Crouzelinae and Pliopithecinae. However, Szalay and Delson (1979) already seriously doubted the validily of the genus Crouzelia, which served the base for Ginsburg and Mein's separation of the subfamily Crouzelinae, based chiefly on the assumption that Crouzelia was based on wrong identification of the deciduous teeth as permanent ones. The careful observation of the cast of the type speeimen shows that the original teeth identification was correct, therefore Ginsburg and Mein's subdivision of the family Pliopithecidae is to be considered tenable. Our speeimen from Tongxin should obviously be exeluded from the subfamily Crouzelinae, which is characterized by the lophodont tendeney of the main cusps, reduction of the entoconid and hypoconulid and less developed cingulum. According to Ginsburg and Mein, Pliopithecinae consists of only one genus and three species: Pliopithecus piveteaui, P. antiquus and P. vindobonensis. The Tongxin specimen is evidently closest to the later speeies in both morphology and size. Nevertheless, they differ still considerably: 1. The Tongxin specimen is even larger in size than that in the iater species. In fact our specimen represents the largest individual ever found for the genus Pliopithecus (see table 1) . 2. The secondary structures on the erown surface of the Tongxin specimen are rieher developed. 3. The \"pliopithecine triangle\"is still not completely closed in our specimen.<br>Our new specimen may well represent a new species of the genus, but the paueity of the material made us hesitating in doing so. 相似文献
1