EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Taxonomic affinities of the Eppelsheim femur






American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119(4): 297-304

Taxonomic affinities of the Eppelsheim femur

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.

Accession: 011454222

PMID: 12448015

DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10140

Download PDF Full Text: Taxonomic affinities of the Eppelsheim femur



Related references

Getting to the bottom of the primeval Rhine - excavations at Eppelsheim Auf dem Grunde des Urrheins - Ausgrabungen bei Eppelsheim. Natur und Museum (Frankfurt am Main). Juni; 1306: 169-180, 2000

A Hominin Femur with Archaic Affinities from the Late Pleistocene of Southwest China. Plos One 10(12): E0143332-E0143332, 2016

Taxonomic affinities of Physena and Asteropeia. American Journal of Botany 84(6 SUPPL ): 218, 1997

The evolutionary and taxonomic affinities of Meganthropus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 63(2): 179-180, 1984

The taxonomic affinities of the australian neottioideae. Taxon 25(2-3): 289-296, 1976

The taxonomic affinities of the genus ripogonum. Nordic Journal of Botany 5(3): 215-220, 1985

Taxonomic affinities of Bradypterus montis. Dutch Birding 11(4): 164-167, 1989

Taxonomic affinities of leitneria floridana. The University Of British Columbia Second International Congress Of Systematic And Evolutionary Biology, Vancouver, B C , Canada, July 17-24, I+441p University Of British Columbia: Vancouver, B C , Canada Paper : p307, 1980

On the taxonomic affinities of the Dmanisi mandible (Georgia). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107(2): 145-162, 1998

Morphological and taxonomic affinities of the Olduvai ulna (OH 36). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 109(1): 89-110, 1999