• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Human/primate ancestry and the so-called "missing link"

Vortigern99

Sorcerer Supreme
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
7,905
Location
Austin, Texas
Below I've compiled a list of the known ancestors of modern hominidae (great apes and humans). My purpose in compiling it is threefold:

1. To show that with so many transitional forms, the anthropological fossil record is very complete and thorough, even if our understanding of the precise phylogeny (which species evolved into which, and which are merely related species with no direct ancestry to us) is not.

2. To show that the term "missing link" (most recently applied to Darwinius massilae) is a wildly inaccurate media invention, because a.) the term could easily apply to just about any species on the list, and b.) nothing appears to be "missing" [see 1.), above].

3. The current trend of saying that human beings are "apes", because we are in the same Superfamily (Hominoidea) as apes, is confusing and unnecessarily broad, since distinctions are made at every level of the taxonomic "tree". More on this in a future post
.​

For now, here is the list I've compiled, with "mya" meaning how many "millions of years ago" a species is thought to have lived, plus region of habitation, physical and behavioral traits, diet and habitat where known. In between entries, I've also added some comments in italics. The list may be incomplete and may contain errors. My hope is that you will help me complete it and correct any mistakes or oversights:

Ancient Primates
(some of which are our ancestors, some merely relatives)



Eurchonta (65 mya – 45 mya: Africa) Superorder which includes subdivisions Primatomorpha (including Primata and proto-Primata Plesiadapiformes.) Plesiadapis had claws, bilateral eyes, was faster on ground than in trees, spent a longer time on lower branches, ate fruits and leaves. Carpolestes had grasping digits.

Notharctus (50 mya: Africa) Ancestor of modern prosimians but with shorter face, binocular vision, elongated fingers with thumb, flexible spine.

Darwinius massilae (47 mya: Africa) 3’ long including tail. Had fingers, fingernails, big toe, opposable thumb, short face (unlike modern prosimians), binocular vision, ankle bone (like modern humans), no grooming claw and no tooth comb (unlike modern prosimians). Possibly intermediate between Prosimians and simians. Famous specimen known as “Ida”.

Prosimians (wet-nosed primates or strepsirrhini) split from monkeys and apes (dry-nosed primates or Haplorrhini) some 40 mya.

Aegyptopithecus (35 mya – 33 mya: Africa) Old World-monkey-like, tree-dwelling ancestor of Catarrhini, stayed in Africa as continents drifted

Catarrhini split into two super-families, Old World monkeys and apes, some 25 mya.

Morotopithecus (21 mya: Africa) Upright spine, vertical body plan.

Hominidae (humans and great apes) split from Hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs) some 15 mya.

Homininae (humans, gorillas and chimps) split from Ponginae (orangutans) some 13 mya.


Pierolapithecus (13 mya: Europe [Spain] and possibly Africa) Flat, wide ribcage, stiff lower spine, flexible wrists, shoulder blades that lie along the back all indicate ape-like, tree-dwelling features. Monkey-like features include a sloped face and short fingers and toes. Oldest known common ancestor of humans and great apes.

Sivapithecus (12.5 mya – 8.5 mya: Asia [India and Pakistan]) Almost 5’ tall. Many similarities to orangutan skull and somatic features indicate one of three species probable ancestor to Pongo.

Dryopithecus (12 mya - 9 mya: Africa, Europe and Asia) 2’ long. Flat-handed wrist-joint and probable brachiation suggests ground- and tree-dwelling. Possible common ancestor of Hominidae and Hylobatidae.

Bipedalism: Climate changes 11-12 mya affected forests in Eastern and Central Africa, leading to periods where openings in forest prevented travel through the tree canopy. Some hominins adapted upright walking for ground travel, like modern orangs do on small, flexible branches or on the ground.

Hominini (humans and chimps) split off from Gorillini some 10 mya.


Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 mya: Central Africa) Teeth and skull more hominin-like than ape-like. Possibly latest known common ancestor of chimps and humans, or oldest known human ancestor after the human/chimp split, or related to both but ancestral to neither, or is a female proto-gorilla. Thickened brow ridges similar to later fossil hominids such as Homo erectus, but different from Australopithecus and extant humans. Possibly bipedal based on anterior position of foramen magnum. Brain case 340 – 360 cc.

Genus Homo (humans) split off genus Pan (chimps) some 7 mya. Both chimps and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and lungs.

Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya: East Africa) Size of modern chimpanzees (~5’ tall). A mix of ape and hominin features. Femur similar to Australopithecus afarensis, but also similar to modern Homo sapiens. Possible biped. Earliest known ancestor that post-dates the chimpanzee/human separation. Small canines suggest fruit, vegetables and occasionally meat. Evidence of dry evergreen forest habitat calls into question the opinion that bipedalism evolved later, on the savanna.

Ardipithecus kadabba (5.8 – 5.2 mya: Northern Africa) Size of modern chimps. Shares certain traits with Gorilla and Pan, indicating proper placement on chimp branch rather than human. Shares “canine cutting complex” with modern chimpanzees, not shared by Homo. Evidence of woodland, grassland and swamp habitat.

Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya: Northern Africa) Size of modern chimps. Shares certain traits with Gorilla and Pan, indicating proper placement on chimp branch rather than human, but has dentition similar to Australopithecus. Lacks “canine cutting complex” which modern chimps have, a primitive trait lost during hominin evolution. Possible biped based on toe structure. Not considered hominin ancestor by scholars. Evidence of woodland, grassland and swamp habitat.

Australopithecus afarensis (4 mya – 2.5 mya: Eastern and Northern Africa) 3’6” – 4’ tall. Slender, gracile, but some specimens show robust jaw. Canines ‘and molars’ size between modern humans and modern and extinct apes. Brain size ~380-430cc. Prognathic face. Curved feet and long arms indicate some arboreal locomotion, but hips and other skeletal features indicate bipedal locomotion with upright posture on ground. Robust jaw in some specimens may indicate ancestry only of more robust genus Paranthropus, and not Homo, though this is debated. Famous specimens include “Lucy”, the “First Family”, the Laetoli prints, and “Lucy’s Baby”, aka “Selam”.

Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 – 3.9 mya) Jaw similar to chimp. Teeth similar to human. Possible woodland habitat.

Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 mya: East Africa) Emerged from Australopithecus genus. “Flat-face”.

Australopithecus africanus (3 mya – 2.5 mya) Slender, gracile, human-like but with curved, ape-like fingers. More like modern humans than older A. afarensis. More human-like cranium, larger brain at about 400-500cc. Intermembral index closer to chimps than humans, but hips built for better bipedal locomotion than A. afarensis. Cranium also similar to P. robustus, indicating possible ancestry of that more robust hominid. Famous specimens “Taung Baby” and “Mrs. Ples”.

Paranthropus (2.5 mya – 1.5 mya) 4’3” – 4’6” tall. Brain size 40% of modern H. sapiens. Robust skeleton. Sagittal crest anchored large jaw muscles for masticating grasses and other plants, grubs. Probable woodland habitat. Specialized, not as adaptable as Homo. Species boisei, aethiopicus, robustus.

Which specimens can be classified as genus Homo is an on-going debate. Some of the features proposed as qualifications include a precise hand grip, a minimum brain capacity between 600-900cc, and small teeth.

Homo habilis (2.4 – 1.4 mya: South and East Africa) 3’ tall. 500cc brain size, 60% of modern H. sapiens. Smaller molars, larger brains than Australopithecus. Ate a range of foods, including some meat and bone marrow, which provided protein for brain growth. A weaker jaw also allowed cranial expansion. Probably used stone tools, likely was inventive and used teamwork to solve problems.

Homo rudolfensis (1.9 mya: East Africa) Similar to H. habilis. Relatively large brain at 800cc. Might have been partly arboreal. Scavengers, competed with habilis for resources.

Homo ergaster (1.8 mya – 1.4 mya: Africa, Europe and Asia [Java]) Lankier, more sophisticated than H. habilis. Possibly showed whites of eyes to communicate hidden depths of meaning. Possibly less body hair than previous hominins. Possibly had spoken language. Possibly wore some furs or hides. First hominin species to leave Africa. Famous specimen called “Java Man”.

Homo georgicus (1.5 mya) “Dmanisi Man” Intermediate morphology between H. habilis and H. erectus. Possibly had control of fire. Possibly had dark skin, some degree of loss of body hair. Possible sub-species of H. erectus.

Homo erectus (1.6 mya – 400 kya: Africa, Europe and Asia [China]) 5’10” tall. Dental and skeletal differences distinguish from H. ergaster, though they are related. Brain 70% capacity of modern H. sapiens. Forehead less sloping, teeth smaller than predecessors. Possibly less hairy than predecessors, possibly wore clothes. Evolved in Africa but found mostly in Asia. Possibly used fire for cooking. Used handaxes to cut, chop and dig. Famous specimen called “Peking Man”.

Homo antecessor (1.2 mya – 800 kya: Africa and Europe) 5’6” – 6’ tall. Similar to H. ergaster and H. heidelbergensis, but more robust; possible direct ancestor of those species. 1000cc brain capacity. Protruding occipital bun. Low forehead, lack of strong chin. Owing to flensed bones of specimens, may have been cannibalistic. May have been right-handed, may have had symbolic language. Also known as “Archaic H. sapiens”, H. sapiens antecessor or H. mauritanicus.

Homo heidelbergensis (650 kya – 250 kya: Africa and Europe) 6’ tall. Brain capacity 93% of modern H. sapiens. Morphologically similar to H. erectus, but with larger brain. Most recent direct ancestor to both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. Also known as “Archaic H. sapiens” or H. sapiens heidelbergensis.

Homo rhodesiensis (300 kya – 125 kya: Africa and Europe) 1200 – 1400cc brain capacity. Thick skull, promiment brow, lack of chin distinguish from modern H. sapiens. Also known as “Archaic H. sapiens” or H. sapiens rhodesiensis.

Homo neanderthalensis (250 kya – 30 kya: Europe) Large brains, cared for infirm, buried dead with implements. Also formerly known as “Archaic H. sapiens” or “H. sapiens neanderthalensis”, but owing to genetic studies there is now little debate they that they are own species.

Homo sapiens idaltu
(160 kya) Mortuary rituals, butchered hippos. Also known as “Archaic H. sapiens”.

Homo floresiensis (30 kya) Diminutive size. Possible descendant of H. erectus.

Homo sapiens (200 kya – 4.5 kya) 1600cc brain capacity. Painting, sculpture, refined tools, precision grip. Also known as “Archaic H. sapiens”.

Homo sapiens sapiens (4.5 kya – present) Look in the mirror!
 
Last edited:
Nice list there, Vort. Do you think you could map out the evolutionary timeline of non-human primates, such as the Orangutan or Chimpanzee? Or is there not enough fossil record for either one?
 
Last edited:
It isn't required that the entire post be quoted in the very next reply, which is only 3 sentences lone.
 
Thanks, mak. Maybe you could add those entries yourself? My main concern here is the ancestry of H. sapiens, but I would welcome any contribution to the list.

Also, could you please edit your post and remove the quoted portion, namely my entire opening post? As I Ratant has noted, it's unnecessary to copy the whole thing after I just posted it directly above, and is distracting and frustrating to have to scroll down past. Thanks!
 
It isn't required that the entire post be quoted in the very next reply, which is only 3 sentences lone.

Long*. Sorry about that! Im just looking forward to discussing primates without having the big guy involved.
 
Euarchonta is a superorder of mammals which is quite a different level of taxon to the list of genera and species which follows. I think it's confusing to include it amongst the others.
 
makaya325 said:
Im just looking forward to discussing primates without having the big guy involved.

Agreed! Unless by "big guy" you meant:

Gigantopithecus blacki (1 mya - 300 kya: Asia) ~9' tall. Probably vegetarian. Possibly bipedal owing to anterior placement of foramen magnum, though this is debated. Jawbone and teeth only specimens. Probable descendant of Sivapithecus, but not believed to be ancestor of modern orangutan.

:D
 
Last edited:
Euarchonta is a superorder of mammals which is quite a different level of taxon to the list of genera and species which follows. I think it's confusing to include it amongst the others.

Understood, and thank you. I've added the phrase "Superorder which includes subdivisions" to clarify its placement on the list. It was my first entry, before I had nailed down the format to include only genera and species. But since two genera follow in the main paragraph, I hope that makes the distinction clear enough.
 
I'll be away for awhile, looking at a sonogram of the little primate my wife and I have created in her womb. I'll pick this up when I return!

(In brief, though, A. was confined to Africa and was 3.5 feet tall, hardly a convincing ancestor of a 9' tall Asian ape!)
 
Agreed! Unless by "big guy" you meant:

Gigantopithecus blacki (1 mya - 300 kya: Asia) ~9' tall. Probably vegetarian. Possibly bipedal owing to anterior placement of foramen magnum, though this is debated. Jawbone and teeth only specimens. Probable descendant of Sivapithecus, but not believed to be ancestor of modern orangutan.

:D

I am curious here: What is your opinion/view on the hypothetical locomotion of Gigantopithecus? I am just wondering, because the bipedal theory is not likely, due to the fact that Gigantopithecus's large mass would not have allowed it to walk upright, but instead, on its knuckles. I wonder if Gigantopithecus giganteus, a distinct species about half the size of blacki, could have been bipedal

Regardless of its locomotion, It is one of the most mysterious Primates of them all, given the fact that we know so little about it.
 
(In brief, though, A. was confined to Africa and was 3.5 feet tall, hardly a convincing ancestor of a 9' tall Asian ape!)

That is what baffles me Too vort. Couldnt it be possible for Bergmanns rule to be responsible for growth in species over generations?
 
Agreed! Unless by "big guy" you meant:

Gigantopithecus blacki (1 mya - 300 kya: Asia) ~9' tall. Probably vegetarian. Possibly bipedal owing to anterior placement of foramen magnum, though this is debated. Jawbone and teeth only specimens. Probable descendant of Sivapithecus, but not believed to be ancestor of modern orangutan.

:D

A couple of points here.
9' tall!? Based on...what exactly? Not picking on you here. This number has been thrown around by people studying the teeth and mandibles in relationship to gorillas, orangs, Sivapithecus, and other primates. BUT...if you compare the size of the teeth and jaws of Paranthropus spp. with other hominids, it would appear that Paranthropus should be a giant rather than the pygmy it is. My personal view (completely unencumbered by any evidence whatsoever) is that Gigantopithecus had enormous teeth and jaws on a rather average-sized ape body. I'd happily accept 5-6 feet as its standing height, but not more. In my view, it's dietary specialization did NOT necessitate a dramatic increase in overall stature or size.

The other point is that the hypothesis of it being bipedal came from Grover Krantz wanting it to be. His claim about the wide ramus spread is true...but it does NOT equate with bipedal locomotion. Pandas show the same short snout and wide spread of the jaws in relation to other bears as Gigantopithecus does to other apes. Are pandas bipeds? No. They DO sit upright for long periods of time, but again, the jaw shape is due to mechanical restrictions of the feeding apparatus, not locomotion. Again, I'd argue that Gigantopithecus was a normal sized, quadrupedal ape that happened to have tremendous chewing power and possibly sat upright for long periods, chewing on bamboo and other tasty items.

Now, back to the regular programming.
 
Gigantopithecus's teeth and jaw are considerably larger than those of the modern gorilla. Ciochon and Rink estimate it's size to be considerably larger than any known primate.
 
And Vort, since the stated hope was for assistance in correcting and improving the list, I'll point out a couple of other things.
For starters, genus and species are always italicized (e.g., Homo sapiens).
Also, when abbreviating to mention a species, it's accepted practice to abbreviate the genus, but not omit it entirely (e.g., H. habilis rather than just habilis).
Amount and distribution of body hair is probably not something we can ever be certain about, unless a complete, frozen specimen is found, so it's safest not to discuss this as a characteristic.
Also, Homo habilis has recently been reinterpreted as being significantly taller than 3 ft. I can scrounge up the reference if you can't locate it, but using the same specimen (OH 62 I believe) that Leakey used, another group determined the stature to be closer to 5'.
Finally, for some of your taxa (e.g., Paranthropus, Sivapithecus), you've only listed the genus, but not species name, even though you mention a list of species. Each of those genera had multiple species, so it would be best to include them all if your list really is intended to be a species catalogue.

Hope this helps!
 
desertyeti and makaya, thanks for the input and suggestions. Here are my revised entries for Gigantopithecus:

Gigantopithecus bilapurensis (9 mya - 6 mya: Asia [India]) Similar, and possibly ancestral, to G. blacki (see below). Jawbone and teeth only specimens.

Gigantopithecus blacki (1 mya - 100 kya: Asia [China, Vietnam]) Possibly ~9' tall based on size of jawbone and teeth, but owing to wide interspecies differences in the relationship between tooth and body size, some argue G. blacki was much smaller, ~6'. Probably vegetarian; diet of bamboo, foliage, fruits, seeds. Canines neither pointed nor sharp, incisors small, close and peglike. Possibly bipedal owing to U-shape and width of jaw, though this is debated. Jawbone and teeth only specimens. Bamboo forests probable habitat, like that of modern panda. Probable descendant of Sivapithecus, but not believed to be ancestor of modern orangutan.

Gigantopithecus giganteus (6 mya: Asia [India and China]) Similar to G. blacki in most respects, but likely half the size based on the size of jawbones and teeth, which are the only specimens. Also, possible carnivore owing to fossil remains of another species found inside a certain specimen.

BTW, this page -- http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html -- has some detailed discussion about G., as well as some swell pics. To my mind, the comparison picture between G. and Homo jaw and teeth dashes the thinking that this animal was only 6' tall. I simply cannot imagine that jaw on a man-sized animal.
 
Last edited:
I'll be away for awhile, looking at a sonogram of the little primate my wife and I have created in her womb. I'll pick this up when I return!

(In brief, though, A. was confined to Africa and was 3.5 feet tall, hardly a convincing ancestor of a 9' tall Asian ape!)
.
Diet, exercise, and lots of steroids!
 
How do you know what H. ergaster did with the whites of its eyes?

Well, of course I'm drawing this information from other sources, and compiling it into a handy list. None of the offered facts or opinions come from my own head. For the record, I graduated from college in 1994 with a BFA and a minor in anthropology. Three years of anthro classes and an on-going interest in the area of human and primate evolution are the limits of my understanding of the subject.

The assertion that H. ergaster used the whites of its eyes for communication derives from the excellent BBC program "Walking with Cavemen Part 2" (here: http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...t+2&search_type=&aq=1&oq=walking+with+cavemen), an assertion that is corroborated by the ergaster sculptures at the American Museum of Natural History (see this flickr series: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503155635@N01/20696877/). I can find no other verification for this opinion -- no physiological analysis which would seem to indicate a reason to believe that ergaster's eyes, in contrast to say H. erectus, had the whites showing.

Indeed this page: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013384.html takes such sentimentalist depictions to task, criticizing the sculpture of Victor Deak and the ascription of human emotions to hominin ancestors on the BBC program I named above.

So, it appears the jury is out on the subject.
 
3. The current trend of saying that human beings are "apes", because we are in the same Superfamily (Hominoidea) as apes, is confusing and unnecessarily broad, since distinctions are made at every level of the taxonomic "tree". More on this in a future post.

I'm looking forward to this, as I know of no taxonomically credible way to retain the term "ape" and not apply it to humans as well. The "let us give names to paraphyletic groups and consider them equivalent to names of monophyletic groups" crowd is thankfully growing smaller every year.
 

Back
Top Bottom