[Taxacom] Media hype over Darwinius (new Adapoid primate fossil)

[John Grehan]

On page 5723 they cite four potential 'haplorhine' (tarsier +
anthropoid) synapomorphies:

1. Cranium with short rostrum - problematic in that this feature is
supposed to also characterized tarsiers but the latter have a rostrum
that is as long as various other prosimians (they enlarged eyes encroach
over the rostrum)

2. Deep mandibular ramus - no comment at this time

3. Fused mandibular symphasis - in this feature the fossil is supposed
to be closer to anthropoids that Tarsius, but the fusion is only
'partial' so not sure how valid. Fusion also occurs in at least one
fossil lemur.

4. Vertical, spatulate incisors. Problematic in combining twho different
characteristics. Certainly 

5. 'Relatively' small, steep fibular facet on astragalus. No comment at
this time. I have not seen this posited elsewhere as a haplorhine
synapomorphy.

6. Loss of all grooming claws. Not sure if presence of grooming claws
was an ancestral feature of primates. They recognize that tarsiers have
grooming claws (a tarsier-leurifomrm synapomorphy) so again this would
argue for a closer relationship between the fossil and anthropoids).

No doubt more light will be shed when I read more of the paper.

John Grehan







> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:08 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Media hype over Darwinius (new Adapoid primate
fossil)
> 
> Dear All,
>      I'm not going to address the advisability of all the media hype
> that was orchestrated along with today's publication of the
description
> of Darwinius, other than that the phrase "missing link" can too often
> involve more PR than good science.
>       I assume that the assignment of Darwinius to the Adapoidea is
> correct, but whether adapoids should now be regarded as members of
> Strepsirhini or Haplorhini is less certain.  The authors of today's
> paper in PLOS regard Darwinius as a member of Suborder Haplorhini,
while
> adapoids are more generally regarded as basal members of Suborder
> Strepsirhini.
>        There will now be a contentious debate over which placement is
> correct.  However, we should not overlook a third possibility, namely
> that adapoids could be a paraphyletic grouping that gave rise to both
> Strepsirhini and Haplorhini.  In other words, when you hear the debate
> in the coming weeks and months, just remember that there are three
> possibilities, not just two.
>           --------Ken Kinman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here