Professional Documents
Culture Documents
El Man Deborah 198 Siva Pi The Cus
El Man Deborah 198 Siva Pi The Cus
El Man Deborah 198 Siva Pi The Cus
January 1988
The Thesis of Deborah Elaine Elman-Whitchurch is approved:
i i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
would like to thank my good friend Elaine, who gave her time
i i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i i i
ABSTRACT vi i
CHAPTERS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Problem Statement 2
1. Dating Techniques 3
a. Potassium-argon Technique 4
b. Paleomagnetic Reversals 7
c. Fission Track 9
d. Faunal Correlation 9
C. Phylogenetic Analysis 14
A• 1 930 to 1 960 20
23
37
iv
IV. Criticisms of Current Ramapithecine
Hypotheses 92
A. Early Divergence Hypothesis 92
B. Late Divergence Hypothesis 95
C. Sivapithecus is an Ancestor to Pengo 97
V. Conclusion 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY 107
~--
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
TABLES
FIGURES
I ll
1 • Cladogram of The Early Divergence Hypothesis 69
\' i
ABSTRACT
by
radiation are earlier than the dates for the Asian fossils.
vi i
hominid, addition of the earlier form Kenyapithecus to this
vi i i
Chapter I
Introduction
range of 8-10 mil lion years <Myr) for the divergence of the
1
2
A. Problem Statement.
previous sections.
3
1. Dating Techniques.
a. Potassium-argon Techniques
techniques.
1972).
certain that the organism even lived at the same time of the
b. Paleomagnetic Reversals
discovered.
c. Fission-track
d. Faunal Correlation
murids <mice).
1981:7).
(1) the usual small size of the fossil sample <2) gaps in
this problem.
C. Phylogenetic Analysis.
Myr <Fitch and Miller 1976) for the KBS Tuff. Revised dates
been published <Walter and Aronson 1982). The KBS Tuff also
1985). The new dates for Hadar and Lake Turkana make the
may have occurred as early as 17.2 Myr based upon the Buluk,
genus: Sivapithecus.
genera.
,~
Chapter II
18
19
classified as a pre-hominid.
descendant.
20
A. 1 930 to 1 960 .
a .new genus.
-support for the Asian origin for man. The popular hyothesis
B. The 1960/s.
progressive change.
hominids.
Simons <1967:35) proposed a tentative phylogeny that
Table I
Revision of the Dryopithecinae
<Simons and Pilbeam 1965:142-143)
Table I <continued)
Table I <continued)
Figure I
M 0-
Pleistocene I Gar i 1 1 a Pan Homo
L AustraloQithecus
L 5-
I
0
N 10-
s
0 15- R:.. Qun,j ab i cus
F
JL.. ajor
y 20- JL.. sivalensis I
-II
D. africanus
E
A
R 25-
s \
32
Figure II
Phylogeny that Supports a Relationship
Between Ramapithecus and Australooithecus
Simons (1967)
Pleistocene
M
L
L
r
o-
5-
-,
Homo
lb.. africanus
Gor i l l a
PI i ocene I
0
N 10-
Miocene S R.:.. pun.iabicus
0 15-
F
date for hominids and pongids during the late Oligocene and
Rampithecus.
characteristics of hominids.
by Pilbeam (1968:1336):
distinct by 14 Myr.
rami.
recent hominoids.
and Gorilla diverged in the Miocene. But they are too close
Myr.
Uzzel 1 and Pilbeam <1971) did not accept the late divergence
Miocene.
offer any support for this date, but asked for new analyses
40
Pleistocene dating.
was viewed as being even more tenuous than the one given by
Australopithecus.
hominid.
indicus have been found in the same deposits. They are also
phylogeny.
concepts.
<1977) did not disagree with the basic premise of Conroy and
together.
Figure III
Australo~s
Pleistocene I
L
L 5- Ponjidae
PI iocene I
0
N 10-
_r,Ji ocene s
0 15-
F
y 20-
E Dryopithecidae
A
R 25-
s
~apithecidae
Pliocene I
0
N 10-
Miocene s
0 15-
F
~7
J. 20-
E Dryopithecidae
A
R 25-
s
I •
49
M 0- Pongidae Homo
Austr~IoQithecus
Pleistocene I
PI i ocene
L
L
I
0
N 10-
5-
\ 7
last common
ancestor
undetermined
species
I
Ramapithecidae
Miocene s
0 15-
F
y 20-
E Dryopithecidae
A
R 25-
s
suggested that the results from the clock model were not
evidence.
method over the other because the low quantity and quality
1975).
The 1980"s
Ciochon 1983:13).
57
----~·-----·- --~--· --~~---.....--- --~--
58
1983:7).
to descendant.
1980; Greenfield 1980; Kay and Simons 1983; Ward and Pilbeam
groups; that is, they represent two fossil groups which are
panlscus.
between them.
and Slvapithecus.
63
emergence of Sivapithecus.
Kay and Simons <1983) have divided the traits into those
phylogenetic groups.
64
Australoplthecus:
from each other blends well with Kay and Simons; <1983) idea
1. ~ sivalensis
2. ~ indicus
3. ~ pun.iablcus
4. ~ chin.iiensis
5. ~ giganteus
6. L. afrlcanus
Prasad <1983:569) also argues for the separation of
the very least, establish a new species for the the former
Figure IV
evolutionary studies:
from the main hominoid stock earlier than did the African
apes and man. The best test for these results is the fossil
those between Pan and Gorilla and are equal to those between
74
Figure V
Late Divergence Phylogeny
Greenfield <1980:361)
M 0- Pengo Pan
-,- Gor- i I 1a Homo
I
Pleistocene I
L
L 5-
~ blacki
I
I
I I
I
I
' '\.
'
Australooithecus
: I
Pliocene I I
I - .
I
I ' '-1?I ...... ../ - ..--
0 ~ bilasourensls
<. .......
......
...... ......
I
N 10- .....
...... ,,j ........
Miocene s ....... ...... /
',?. . . . . . . .
0 15- Sivaeithecus
I
F I
D. <Dr:toQlthecus)
y 20- I
I
E <Proconsul)
A
R 25-
s
75
fossil record.
labeled 11
hominid". Wolpoff <1982~ 1983) claims~ however~
<Wolpoff 1982:508).
•, - . . ~ '···-~.., ...
78
!
79
Figure VI
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
80
orangutan clade.
<Goodman 1983; Cronin 1983) that the African apes and Homo
sensu stricto.
populations.
cautionary statement:
hominids.
than that for the divergence of Homo and the African apes.
to be provided.
1983).
86
Figure VII
/
87
and Xu 1985).
and sex ratios of the extant apes <Wu and Oxnard 1983a).
<Oxnard et ~. 1985).
close to 10 Myr.
the proposal which has drawn the most criticism. The most
hominid package.
<1986), and Wolpoff (1982, 1983) are not the same, but their
92
93
in ~ afarensis
and extant great apes. (2) Sivapithecus would not share any
between Pengo and the African apes. His study shows that
shifted, then apart from size, Pengo and Gorilla are shown
to be alike.
and modern humans are not the result of paral lellsm, as Kay
98
hominoid stock.
Conclusion
keep the two genera separate. But Kay and Simons (1983)
100
101
that they are often combined into the same genus. The
date of 8-17.2 Myr <Wu 1984; McDougall and Watkins 1985) for
1983).
hominids.
1983).
Myr.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrev..•s. P.
1982 Hominoid Evolution. Nature 295:185-186.
Boaz, N. T.
1983 Morphological Trends and Phylogenetic
Relationships from Middle Miocene Hominoids to
Late Pliocene Hominids. In: New
Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry. R.
L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini, eds. New York
and London: Plenum Publishing. 705-720.
Boaz, N. T. and J. E. Cronin
1985 A New Classification fo the Catarrhini Abstract.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 66:
146.
Ciochon, R. L.
1983 Hominoid Cladistics and the Ancestry of Modern
Apes and Humans. A Summary Statement. In: New
Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry. R.
L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccinl, eds. New York
107
108
Cronin, J. E.
1983 Apes, Humans and Molecular Clocks. Reappraisal.
In: New Interpretations of Ape and Human
Ancestry. R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini,
eds. New York and London: Plenum Publishing.
115-150.
Curtis, G. H.
1975 Improvements in Potassium-argon Dating:
1962-1975. World Archeology val. 7 No. 2:
198-209.
Fitch F. J.
1972 Geological Error in K-Ar Dating. In:
Calibration of Hominoid Evolution. W. W. Bishop
and J. A. Miller, eds. Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press. 77-91.
Fleischer, R. L.
1975 Advances in Fission Track Dating. World
Archeology val. 7 No.2: 136-150.
Gingerich. P. D.
1984 Primate Evolution: Evidence From the Fossil
Record, Comparative Morphology, and Molecular
Biology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 27:
57-72.
Goodman, M.
1974 Biochemical Evidence on Hominid Phylogeny.
Annual Review of Anthropology 3:203-228.
Greenfield, L. 0.
1978 On the Dental Arcade Reconstructions of
Ramapithecus. Journal of Human Evolution 7:
345-359.
Heberer. G.
1959 The Subhuman Evolutiona~y Histo~y of Man. In:
Ideas on Human Evolution. Selected Essays.
1949-1961. W. Howells, ed. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. 201-241.
Howe! I, F. C.
...
',
1 0"'7':> Recent Advances in Human Evolutionary Studies.
In: Pe~sepectives on Human Evolution 2. S. L.
Washburn and P. Dolhinow, eds. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston. 51-128.
Hrdlicka, A.
1935 The Yale Fossils of Anthropoid Apes. American
Journal of Science, Series 5, 229: 34-40.
Khat r i • A . P .
1975 The Early Fossil Hominids and Related Apes of
the Siwalik Foothills of the Himalay~s: Recent
Discoveries and New Inte~pretations. In:
Paleonanthropology Morphology and Paleoecology.
R. H. Tuttle, eds. The Hague: Mouton
Publishers. 31-58.
Krantz, G. S.
1975 The Double Descent of Man. In:
111 ~ .
Kretzoi, M.
1975 New ramapithecines and Pllopithecus from the
Lower Pliocene of Rudabanya in northeastern
Hungary. Nature 257: 578-581.
Leakey. L. S. B.
1962 A new Lower Pliocene fossil primate from Kenya.
Annual Magazine Natural History 13 <4): 689-696
Le Gras Clark, W. E.
1964 The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution. Second
Edition. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lewin. R.
1983 Is the Orangutan a Living Fossil. Science 222:
1222-1223.
Le~,, is, G. E.
1934 Preliminary Notice of New Man-like Apes from
India. American Journal of Science, Series 5,
227: 161-181.
Lydekker, R.
1886 Siwalik Mammalia. Mem. Geological Survey India.
Pal. Indica <10), IV, 1, pp. 1-18, pis. 1-6.
Metcalf, L. A.
1982 Tephros~ratigraphy and Potassium-Argon Age
Determinations of Seven Volcanic Ash Layers ln
the Muddy Creek Formation of Southern Nevada.
Dept. of Energy, Nevada Operations Office.
Miller, J. A.
1972 Dating Pliocene and Pleistocene Strata Using the
Potassium-argon and Argon-40/Argon-39 methods.
In: Calibration of Hominoid Evolution. W. W.
Bishop and J. A. Miller, eds. Scottish Academic
Press, Edinburgh. 63-76.
Oxnard, C. E.
1985 Human, Apes and Chinese Fossils. New
Implications for Human Evolution. Occasional
Papers Series No.4. Hong Kong University Press.
Pickford, M.
1985a A New Look at Kenyapithecus based on Recent
Discoveries in Western Kenya. Journal of Human
Evolution 14: 113-143.
Pi lbeam, D.
1966 Notes on Ramapithecus, the Earliest Known
Hominid, and Dryopithecus. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 25: 1-5.
1968 The Earliest Hominids. Nature 219: 1335-1338.
Pilgrim, G. E.
1915 New Si~alik primates and their bearing on the
question of evolution of man and anthropoldea.
Ibid 45, 1-74.
Prasad, K. N.
1964 Upper Miocene Anthropoids from the Siwalik Beds
of Haritalyangar, Hemachal Pradesh, India.
Paleontology 7 (1): 124-134.
Reynolds, V.
1966 Open Groups In Hominid Evolution. Man <N.S.) 1:
441-452.
Sankhyan, A. R.
1985 Late Occurance of Slvapithecus in Indian
Siwaliks. Journal of Human Evolution 14:
573-578.
Sarich, V.
1973 Just How Old is the Hominid Line? Yearbook of
Physical Anthroplogy 17: 98-112.
Schwartz. J. H.
1984 The Evolutionary Relationships of Man and
115
Shea, B.
1985 On Aspects of Sku! 1 Form in African Apes and
Orangutans, with Implications for Hominoid
Evolution. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 68: 329-342.
Simons, E. L.
1963 Some Fallacies in the Study of Hominid
Phylogeny. Science 141: 879-889.
Vogel, C.
1975 Remarks on the Reconstruction of the Dental
Arcade of Ramapithecus. In: Paleoanthropology
Morphology and Paleoecology. R. H. Tuttle, ed.
The Hague: Mouton Publishers. 87-98.
Vogel, J. C.
116
von Koeniswald, G. H. R.
1983 The Significance of Hitherto Undescribed Miocene
Hominoids from the Siwaliks of Pakistan in the
Senckenber Museum, Frankfurt. In: New
Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry. R.
L.Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini, eds. New York
and London: Plenum Publishing. pp. 517-526.
Walker, A.
1976 Splitting Times among Hominoids Deduced from the
Fossil Record. In: Molecular Anthropology. M.
Goodman, R. E. Tashian and J. H. Tashian, eds.
New York: Plenum Publishing. 63-77.
Washburn, S L.
1951 The Analysis of Primate Evolution with
Particular Reference to the Origin of Man. In:
Ideas on Human Evolution. Selected Essays.
1949-1961. W. Howe! Is, eds. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. 154-171.
Wolpoff, M. H.
1980 PaleoanthropoJogy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Publishing. 651-676.
Wu, R.
1984 The Fossil Hominoids of Lufeng, Yunan Province,
The People/s Republic of China: A Series of
Translations. D. Etler, translator. Yearbook of
Physical Anthropology 27: 1-2.
Wu. R. and Q. Xu
1985 Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus from Lufeng,
China. In: Paleoanthropology and Paleolithic
Archeology ln The People/s Republic of China.
R. Wu and J. W. Olsen, eds. Academic Press.
53-68.
Zwel I, M.
1972 On the Supposed Kenyapithecus africanus
Mandible. Nature 240: 236-239.