Ouranopithecus turkae GüLeç &amp; Sevim &amp; Pehlevan &amp; Kaya 2007, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Güleç, Erksin Savaş
name: Sevim, Ayla
name: Pehlevan, Cesur
name: Kaya, Ferhat
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2007
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Primates
Hominidae
Ouranopithecus
Artiodactyla
Bovidae
Indet.
Indet. indet.
Perissodactyla
Rhinocerotidae
Chilotherium
Ceratotherium
Equidae
Hipparion
Proboscidea
Gomphotheriidae
Choerolophodon

description: Species <i>Ouranopithecus turkae</i> sp. nov. Ovibovini indet. Bovidae gen. et. sp. indet. <b>Etymology.</b> Turkae for the people who live in Anatolia. PERISSODACTYLA Rhinocerotidae <b>Holotype.</b> CO-205, a maxilla fragment with right C–M2 and left I1 –M3. <i>Chilotherium</i> sp. Rhinocerotinae indet. <i>Ceratotherium neumayri</i> <b>Paratypes.</b> CO-300, a subadult mandible with right C–M2 and left P3–M1; CO-710, an adult partial right mandible with P3–M2; holotype and paratypes are housed at the University of Ankara. Equidae <i>Hipparion</i> sp. A <i>Hipparion</i> sp. B <i>Hipparion</i> sp. C PROBOSCIDEA <b>Diagnosis.</b> <i>O. turkae</i> is distinguished from other Miocene hominoids, including <i>Ankarapithecus</i> as well as the probable sister taxon <i>Ouranopithecus macedoniensis</i>, by a constellation of dentognathic features that includes short- er and more vertical premaxilla, palate narrow relative to postcanine occlusal size, and homomorphic P3 and P4. The P3 is nearly symmetrical and oval in occlusal outline and the pre-and postparacrista are subequal in length. <i>O. turkae</i> is further distinguished from <i>O. macedoniensis</i> by its smaller relative canine to cheek tooth size proportions, shorter-crowned male canines, maxillary incisors nearly aligned with the canines, and perhaps larger (male) size. Gomphotheriidae <i>Choerolophodon pentelici</i> Description The upper incisors are very heteromorphic in size and shape. The I1 is robust and squat, with nearly equivalent me- siodistal and labiolingual dimensions (Table 2). Its lingual surface is marked by deep vertical fissures, including prominent mesial and distal lingual grooves. The worn incisal edge angles steeply lingually. A prominent basal tubercle, contributing to the labiolingually thick crown, is slightly worn along the incisal wear plane. The I2 crown is wider labiolingually than mesiodistally, and has a strong basal lingual cingulum and marked lingual relief. Relative to the cheek teeth, the incisors are small. In buccal aspect, the upper canine crown shoulders are set near the crown base. The basal canine outline is a labiolingually elongate oval. The mesial groove is narrow and deep. The right canine tip was fractured antemortem and the dentine was slightly worn apically. There is a distolingual honing facet formed by contact with the P3 and an extensive and mammelated lingual cingulum. Relative to postcanine tooth size, CO-205 has among the smallest canines of presumed males of any known late Neogene hominoid (Figure 3). The <i>O. turkae</i> upper postcanine teeth are in the size range of living gorillas. However, they feature broad, low, rounded cusps, weak cristae, broad, shallow occlusal basins, and simple occlusal morphology. The summed postcanine occlusal area of the CO-205 exceeds that of all other Miocene hominoid primate taxa except <i>Gigantopithecus</i>. Numbers in parentheses are estimates. L, left; R, right; MD, mesiodistal; BL, buccolingual; La-Li, labiolingual; MxOB-BL, maximum oblique buccolingual; MxPerp., maximum perpendicular; H, height. Except for P3, <i>O. turkae</i> molars and premolars lack cingula and their enamel is thick. The enamel thickness of the lateral crown faces in CO-300 measured by recently standardized micro-CT methodology (Suwa and Kono, 2005) at the major cusps ranges from 1.81 to 2.35 mm in the M2 (Figure 4) and from 1.55+ to 2.03+ mm in the M1. Average enamel thickness in the mesial cusp section of the little-worn M2 is 1.94 mm. The relative enamel thickness value (enamel area divided by square root of dentine area; Smith et al., 2003, 2004; Kono, 2004) of M2 is 27.3, making this the thickest enameled Miocene hominoid molar yet examined based on these parameters (Smith et al., 2003, 2004). L, left; R, right; *CT-based estimates. MD, mesiodistal; BL, buccolingual; MxOB-BL, maximum oblique buccolingual; MxPerp., maximum perpendicular to MxOB-BL; H, labial crown height. The <i>O. turkae</i> P3 is oval, rather than of an asymmetrical triangular form as seen in most other fossil and modern apes. The P3 protocone and paracone are of subequal size. In buccal aspect, the crown profile also lacks the asymmetry seen in other ape P3s. This is because of the absence of a strong rootward mesiobuccal projection of the enamel line, and because the distobuccal (postparacrista) and mesiobuccal (preparacrista) occlusal edges are nearly equal in length. The P4 crown is also more oval and symmetric than in most other apes. The mesial and distal foveae of both upper premolars are bounded by thick marginal ridges. In keeping with the large and robust premolars, the upper molars are massive, with distal cusps well expressed and not reduced as in some Miocene hominoids. The M1 is smaller than the M2, which is slightly smaller than M3. The latter tapers distally, is mesiodistally elongate, and bears accessory distal cusps. The M1 cusps were worn low before enamel perforation, with dentine exposed only at the protocone. The enamel thickness of the upper molars was not measured, but the enamel bounding the exposed dentine suggests a thickness comparable to that of the measured lower molars. Only the roots and alveoli of the mandibular incisor are preserved in CO-300. The erupting canine had not reached occlusion, but it is tall, narrow, and pointed. In keeping with the morphology of the upper premolars, the P3 is more oval in occlusal outline than in most apes and even some early hominids. A thin lingual cingulum is present. The protoconid is sharp and prominent. A small honing facet can be seen on the mesio-buccal face of the right P3. The P3 of CO- 710 has a prominent wear facet from protoconid to metaconid and also has a slight honing facet on the mesiobuccal surface. As is the case for the P3, <i>O. turkae</i> has slightly more oval P3s than those of <i>O. macedoniensis</i>. As in the P3, in buccal view, the mesial occlusal edge (preprotocristid) of the P3 in CO-300 is subequal (but slightly longer) in length compared to the distal occlusal edge (postprotocristid). This morphology is unlike the distinctly longer preprotocristid of most other Miocene and modern apes. Hence, the <i>O. turkae</i> P3 is rather less sectorial in shape than in most other known Miocene hominoids, resembling the modern chimpanzee in this respect. The mandibular dental dimensions are given in Table 3. The palate of CO-205 is distorted, but judging from the posterior margins of the incisor and canine alveoli, as well as a fragment of bone along the right lateral edge of the nasal aperture, it featured a short and fairly vertical premaxilla. As the incisors and canines are relatively reduced, the anterior palate is presumed to be relatively narrow, whereas the massive postcanine teeth render the entire palate long and seemingly narrow relative to postcanine size and palatal length. The incisors extend minimally beyond the anterior transverse plane of the canines and are notably vertically implant- ed, particularly for a young adult. There was little or no precanine diastema. The maxillary palatine processes are thin. We consider <i>O. turkae</i> to have had a more vertical face than <i>O. macedoniensis</i>. These apparently derived features may relate to the younger age of the Turkish fossils. Discussion <i>O. turkae</i> is most similar to <i>Ouranopithecus</i> among known Miocene hominoids. The two taxa share many derived features, such as the weakly asymmetric upper and lower P3s, absolutely and relatively large postcanine size, and hyper-thick molar enamel, probably related to a diet that required heavy mastication. This is also evidenced by instances of heavy wear in upper (RPL-128, XIR-1) and lower (RPL-56) dentitions of this genus. This wear was probably associated with an adaptation to more open habitats than those of extant apes. Indeed, <i>Ouranopithecus</i> lived in Eurasia during a time of considerable decline in forest cover, and development of more open country and seasonable environments (Bernor, 1983; de Bonis et al., 1994; Bernor et al., 1996; de Bonis and Koufos, 1999; Begun and Kordos, 1997; Begun, 2005). Previous interpretations of <i>Ouranopithecus</i> had suggested that this genus was a plausible ancestor of African Pliocene <i>Australopithecus</i> based on dentognathic morphological similarities (Begun et al., 2003). Indeed, the resemblance of the upper premolars of <i>O. turkae</i> and non-robust Pliocene <i>Australopithecus</i> such as <i>Au. africanus</i>, is striking. However, most early <i>Australopithecus</i> dentitions, <i>A. anamensis</i> (Ward et al., 2001) and <i>A. afarensis</i> (White, 1977), actually have more primitive postcanine dental features than seen in <i>Ouranopithecus</i>. Furthermore, the African late Miocene hominids <i>Orrorin</i> (Senut et al., 2001), <i>Ardipithecus</i> (White et al., 1994; Haile-Selassie, 2001; Haile-Selassie et al., 2004), and <i>Sahelanthropus</i> (Brunet et al., 2002) lack dentognathic specializations associated with tough/abrasive diets such as that inferred for <i>Ouranopithecus</i> and in early <i>Australopithecus</i>. Such considerations lead us to interpret <i>Ouranopithecus</i> as manifesting substantial dentognathic parallelism with <i>Australopithecus</i> (Begun and Kordos, 1997; Begun, 2001). Hence, we do not consider these features of <i>Ouranopithecus</i> to indicate placement within the hominid (African ape-human) clade (contra de Bonis et al., 1990, 1999; de Bonis and Koufos, 1993, 1994, 1997; Koufos, 1993). <i>O. turkae</i>, the youngest and largest of known Turkish Miocene hominoids, is unlike all modern and other fossil great apes in what is known of its preserved anatomy and its environmental circumstances.
description: Published as part of <i>Güleç, Erksin Savaş, Sevim, Ayla, Pehlevan, Cesur &amp; Kaya, Ferhat, 2007, A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey, pp. 153-158 in Anthropological Science 115 (2)</i> on pages 154-157, DOI: 10.1537/ase.070501, http://zenodo.org/record/3098249
description: {"references": ["Suwa G. and Kono R. T. (2005) A micro-CT based study of linear enamel thickness in the mesial cusp section of human molars: reevaluation of methodology and assessment of within-tooth, serial, and individual variation. Anthropological Science, 113: 273 - 289.", "Smith T. M., Martin L. B., and Leakey M. G. (2003) Enamel thickness, microstructure and development in Afropithecus turkanensis. Journal of Human Evolution, 44: 283 - 306.", "Smith T. M., Lawrence B. M., Reid D. J., de Bonis L., and Koufos G. D. (2004) An examination of dental development in Graecopithecus freybergi (= Ouranopithecus macedoniensis). Journal of Human Evolution, 46: 551 - 577.", "Kono R. T. (2004) Molar enamel thickness and distribution patterns in extant great apes and humans: new insights based on a 3 - dimensional whole crown perspective. Anthropological Sci- ence, 112: 121 - 146", "Bernor R. L. (1983) Geochronology and zoogeographic relationships of Miocene hominoidea. In: Ciochon R. L. and Corruccini R. S. (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry. Plenum Press. New York, pp. 21 - 64.", "de Bonis L. and Koufos G. (1994) Our ancestor's ancestor: Ouran- opithecus is a Greek link in human ancestry. Evolutionary Anthropology, 3: 75 - 83.", "Bernor R. L., Solounias N., Swisher C. C. III, and Van Couvering J. A. (1996) The correlation of three classical \" Pikermian \" mammal faunas, Maragheh, Samos and Pikermi, with the European MN Unit System. In: Bernor R. L., Fahlbusch V., and Mittmann H. - W. (eds.), The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 137 - 156.", "de Bonis L. and Koufos G. (1999) The Miocene large mammal succession in Greece. In: Agusti J., Rook L., and Andrews P. (eds.), Hominoid Evolution and Climatic Change in Europe. Volume 1. The Evolution of Neogene Terrestrial Ecosystems in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 205 - 237.", "Begun D. R. and Kordos L. (1997) Phyletic affinities and functional convergence in Dryopithecus and other Miocene and living hominids. In: Begun D. R., Ward C. V., and Rose M. D. (eds.), Function, Phylogeny and Fossils: Miocene Hominoid Evolution and Adaptations. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 291 - 316.", "Begun D. R. (2005) Sivapithecus is east and Dryopithecus is west, and never the twain shall meet. Anthropological Science, 113: 53 - 62.", "Begun D., Gulec E., and Geraads D. (2003) Dispersal patterns of Eurasian homioids: implications from Turkey. In: Reumer J. W. F. and Wessels W. (eds.), Distribution and Migration of Tertiary Mammals in Eurasia. A Volume in Honour of Hans de Bruijn. DEINSEA 10: 23 - 39.", "Ward C. V., Leakey M. G., and Walker A. (2001) Morphology of Australopithecus anamensis from Kaanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 41: 255 - 368.", "White T. D. (1977) New fossil hominids from Laetoli, Tanzania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 46: 197 - 230.", "Senut B., Pickford M., Gommery D., Mein P., Cheboi K., and Coppens Y. (2001) First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino formation, Kenya). Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des planetes, 332: 137 - 144.", "White T. D., Suwa G., and Asfaw B. (1994) Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature, 371: 306 - 312.", "Haile-Selassie, Y. (2001) Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 412: 178 - 181.", "Haile-Selassie Y., Suwa G., and White T. D. (2004) Late Miocene teeth from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, and early hominid dental evolution. Science, 303: 1503 - 1505.", "Brunet M., Guy F., Pilbeam D., Mackaye H. T., Likius A., Ahounta D., Beauvilain A., Blondel C., Bocherens H., Boisserie J. - R., De Bonis L., Coppens Y., Dejax J., Denys C., Duringer P., Eisenmann V., Fanone G., Fronty P., Geraads D., Lehmann T., Lihoreau F., Louchart A., Mahamat A., Merceron G., Mouchelin G., Otero O., Campomanes P. P., Ponce De Leon M., Rage J. - C., Sapanet M., Schuster M., Suder J., Tassy P., Valentin X., Vignaud P., Viriot L., Zazzo A., and Zollicofer C. (2002) A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa. Nature, 418: 145 - 151.", "Begun D. R. (2001) African and Eurasian Miocene hominoids and the origins of the Hominidae. In: Andrews P., Koufos G., and de Bonis L. (eds.), Hominoid Evolution and Climatic Change in Europe. Volume 2. Phylogeny of the Neogene Hominoid Primates of Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 231 - 253.", "de Bonis L., Bouvrain G., Geraads D., and Koufos G. (1990) New hominid skull material from the late Miocene of Macedonia in northern Greece. Nature, 345: 712 - 714.", "de Bonis L. and Koufos G. (1993) The face and the mandible of Ouranopithecus macedoniensis: description of new speci- mens and comparisons. Journal of Human Evolution, 24: 469 - 491.", "de Bonis L. and Koufos G. D. (1997) The phylogenetic and func- tional implications of Ouranopithecus macedoniensis. In: Begun D. R., Ward C. V., and Rose M. D. (eds.), Function, Phy- logeny and Fossils: Miocene Hominoid Evolution and Adap- tations. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 317 - 326."]}