![]() Among the shared characters currently viewed as linking humans and panins are: a fission‐fusion social system (Goodall, 1968 Nishida, 1968 Wrangham, 1979), a capacity for coalitionary violence (Wrangham, 1999), manufacture and use of tools (Goodall, 1964 Boesch & Boesch, 1983 McGrew, 1992), mental mapping ability (Boesch & Boesch, 1984 Mendes & Call, 2014), numeracy (Matsuzawa, 1985 Rumbaugh et al. 2012), some scholars even advocated placing chimpanzees in the genus Homo (Wildman et al. 1987) became clear, and in accord with evidence that chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than to gorillas (Mikkelsen et al. As the scope of not only behavioral similarities but biochemical similarity (Goodman et al. Accumulating data on the behavior of wild chimpanzees revealed a surprisingly human‐like inventory of behaviors (Goodall, 1968, 1986), nudging the perception of chimpanzee nature closer to that of humans and causing some scholars to reconsider decades old evidence of cognitive sophistication among the apes (Kohler, 1925/1959 Kohts, 1935/2002). In the 1980s this perception began to shift (Stern & Susman, 1983 Cartmill et al. However, not all paleontologists view traits shared by australopiths and chimpanzees as particularly informative through the early 1960s and even later some scholars considered australopiths to be quite human‐like, a perspective that interprets ape‐like traits as primitive retentions. In other words, for much of human evolution early hominins remained in essence bipedal chimpanzees. Humans diverged from panins approximately 6–7 million years ago, yet for several million years after the split, up until the appearance of Homo, hominins continued to share numerous traits with chimpanzees and bonobos, including body mass (McHenry & Berger, 1998), cranial capacity (and presumably therefore many aspects of cognition Schoenemann, 2006), and much of their thoracic and forelimb anatomy (Senut, 1978 Tardieu, 1981 Stern & Susman, 1983). Genetic evidence of rapid evolution among chimpanzees suggests that adaptations to suspensory behavior, vertical climbing, knuckle‐walking, consumption of terrestrial piths and intercommunity violence had not yet evolved or were still being refined when panins (chimpanzees and bonobos) and hominins diverged. Hylobatids, orangutans, Pan species, gorillas and the New World atelines may have each evolved suspensory behavior independently in response to local competition from an expanding population of monkeys. Early depletion of unripe fruit in the central core of the tree canopy by monkeys leaves a hollow sphere of ripening fruits, displacing antifeedant‐intolerant, later‐arriving apes to small‐diameter, compliant terminal branches. Evolutionary trends in morphology and inferred ecology suggest that as monkeys evolved to harvest fruit ever earlier in the fruiting cycle they broadened their niche to encompass first more fibrous, tannin‐ and toxin‐rich unripe fruits and later, for some lineages, mature leaves. It may be that larger body masses allow great apes to succeed in contest competitions for highly desired food items, while the ability of monkeys to digest antifeedant‐rich unripe fruits allows them to win scramble competitions. ![]() Diet differences among extant species, extant species numbers and evidence of cercopithecoid diversification and expansion, in concert with a reciprocal decrease in hominoid species, suggest intense competition between monkeys and apes over the last 20 Ma. postures with eccentric limb orientations or extreme joint excursions). Precarious, unpredictably oriented, compliant supports in the canopy periphery require apes to maneuver using suspensory and non‐sterotypical postures (i.e. The timing of paleontological events, extant cercopithecine and hominoid ecomorphology and other evidence suggests that many distinctive ape features evolved to facilitate harvesting ripe fruits among compliant terminal branches in tree edges. ![]() Apes, members of the superfamily Hominoidea, possess a distinctive suite of anatomical and behavioral characters which appear to have evolved relatively late and relatively independently. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |