16 results
Systematics, Biostratigraphy, and Dental Evolution of the Palaeothentidae, Later Oligocene to Early–Middle Miocene (Deseadan–Santacrucian) Caenolestoid Marsupials of South America
- Thomas M. Bown, John G. Fleagle
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Paleontology / Volume 67 / Issue S29 / March 1993
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 August 2017, pp. 1-76
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The family Palaeothentidae contains some of the dentally more specialized of the small-bodied marsupials of South America and was a clade almost equivalent with the Abderitidae in having been the most abundant caenolestoids. They were unquestionably the most diverse, containing two subfamilies, nine genera, and 19 species, with a distribution ranging from Colombia to Tierra del Fuego. The best and most continuous record of the Palaeothentidae is from Patagonian Argentina where eight genera and 17 species are recognized. There, the Palaeothentidae ranged in age from the Deseadan (later Oligocene) through the late Santacrucian (middle Miocene—the Santacrucian record lasting from about 19.4 m.y. to considerably less than 16.05 m.y. before the present). The family appears to have survived longer in Colombia. The palaeothentine Palaeothentes boliviensis (Bolivia) and the incertae sedis genus and species Hondathentes cazador (Colombia) are the only taxa restricted to an extra-Argentine distribution.
Two palaeothentid subfamilies are recognized. The subfamily Acdestinae is new and is erected to accommodate four genera and five species of herbivorous to frugivorous palaeothentids known from the Deseadan through the middle–late Santacrucian. Three of those genera are new (Acdestoides, Acdestodon, and Trelewthentes), as are three acdestine species placed in the genera Acdestodon, Trelewthentes, and Acdestis. The largely faunivorous Palaeothentinae includes four genera and 13 species; the genera Propalaeothentes and Carlothentes are new and new species are described for the genera Propalaeothentes (2) and Palaeothentes (3). Carlothentes is named for Ameghino's Deseadan species Epanorthus chubutensis, and Ameghino's genus Pilchenia is resurrected to accommodate Deseadan P. lucina. New species include: Acdestodon bonapartei, Trelewthentes rothi, Acdestis lemairei, Palaeothentes marshalli, P. migueli, P. pascuali, and Propalaeothentes hatcheri.
The Palaeothentinae contains more generalized palaeothentid species than does the Acdestinae, but also includes some very specialized forms. The most generalized known palaeothentid is the Colombian Hondathentes cazador. Both the Acdestinae and Palaeothentinae have large- and small-bodied species; Palaeothentes aratae was the largest palaeothentid (about 550 g), and P. pascuali n. sp. the smallest (about 50 g). The oldest known members of both subfamilies consist of five of the six largest palaeothentids.
The evolutionary history of the Palaeothentidae is complicated by thick sequences containing no fossils, several lacunae in sequences that yield fossils, and a continent-wide distribution of localities. By far the densest and most continuous record of the family exists in the coastal Santa Cruz Formation of Patagonian Argentina. Three major clades exist within the Palaeothentidae: 1) the incertae sedis species Hondathentes cazador; 2) the Acdestinae; and 3) the Palaeothentinae (including the new genus Propalaeothentes). The evolution of dental characters in these clades is documented with the aid of 719 new specimens (about 80% of the hypodigm of the family), most of which (about 90% of the new specimens) have precise stratigraphic data.
Biostratigraphic study of the new samples was assisted by a new technique of temporal analysis of paleosols and by radiometric age determinations, the latter indicating that the upper part of the Pinturas Formation (16.6 Ma) is older than the lower part of the Santa Cruz Formation (16.4 Ma) and that the top of the marine Monte León Formation (Grupo Patagonica) is older than either (19.4 Ma).
Fifty-two gnathic and dental characters were used to identify the taxonomy and to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Palaeothentidae. Analysis of sequencing of appearances of derived characters documents rampant convergences at all taxonomic levels and considerable phenotypic plasticity (variable percent representation of different mutable character morphs) in the organization of the palaeothentid dentition. Certain highly generalized character states survive for the duration of the family in some lineages, whereas others are phenotypically lost for a time and then reappear as a minor percentage of character variability. In general, replacement faunas of palaeothentids were morphologically more generalized than their antecedent forms. The high rate of character mutability and the survival and reappearance of generalized dental characters in the Palaeothentidae were probably related to massive events of pyroclastic deposition that periodically caused at least local extinctions of small mammal populations throughout the duration of the Patagonian middle Tertiary. Dental character regression indicates that palaeothentids arose prior to the Deseadan from a relatively large-bodied marsupial having generalized tribosphenic molars with more or less bunodont cusps; probably an unknown member of the Didelphidae.
Size distributions of living and fossil primate faunas
- John G. Fleagle
-
- Journal:
- Paleobiology / Volume 4 / Issue 1 / Winter 1978
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 April 2016, pp. 67-76
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Size distributions, based on molar length, are presented for various groups of living and fossil primates. I examine (1) the extent to which particular taxonomic groups with distinctive morphological and behavioral attributes are characterized by distinctive size ranges or distributions and (2) the way in which size ranges and distributions are affected by the presence or absence of other primates within the same geographical area and time. Distinctive behavioral and ecological “adaptive zones” are characterized by distinctive size ranges and behavioral and morphological parallelism or convergence among living and fossil primate taxa usually results in similar size distributions.
1.7 - The Genus Homo in Africa
- from II. - Africa
-
- By John G. Fleagle, Stony Brook University, Frederick E. Grine, Stony Brook University
- Edited by Colin Renfrew, University of Cambridge, Paul Bahn
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge World Prehistory
- Published online:
- 05 August 2014
- Print publication:
- 09 June 2014, pp 85-105
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The genus Homo almost certainly first evolved in Africa, and it is on that continent that we find the most diversity of species and the greatest evolutionary changes through time. In the mid-20th century, most palaeoanthropologists would have held that, from a palaeontological perspective, our genus contained only a few species, and perhaps only one at any given time. Thus, most would have recognised the existence of perhaps two or three species following one another in time, beginning with Homo erectus in the Early Pleistocene. The past sixty years have witnessed the recovery of a treasure trove of hominin fossils from a variety of temporal horizons in various parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, and of ancient DNA from fossil bones in Europe. These developments, together with more sophisticated analytical techniques, have revealed our genus to have contained considerably more species in the past. At present, we recognise eight or nine species within the genus Homo, with two or more species existing synchronically throughout the Pleistocene (Fig. 1.7.1).
Since the mid-1980s, the lower boundary of the Pleistocene Epoch [i.e. the beginning of the Quaternary Period] has been regarded as corresponding with the base of the Calabrian stratotype, at 1.81 Ma. Recently, however, the International Union of Geological Sciences has recognised the base of the Gelasian stratotype, which corresponds to the Matuyama [C2r] chronozone, or the Gauss-Matuyama boundary, as defining the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary at 2.588 Ma [Riccardi 2009]. This change is significant for discussion of hominin palaeontology; and pending the outcome of appeals to this ruling we continue here to regard the base of the Pleistocene as 1.8 Ma.
Contributors
-
- By Maria Alejandra Abello, Adriana Albino, Kari L. Allen, Juan I. Areta, M. Susana Bargo, Thomas M. Bown, Mariana Brea, Adriana M. Candela, Guillermo H. Cassini, Esperanza Cerdeño, Federico J. Degrange, Maria T. Dozo, Marcos D. Ercoli, Juan C. Fernicola, John G. Fleagle, Analía M. Forasiepi, Miguel Griffin, Matthew T. Heizler, Ari Iglesias, Richard F. Kay, E. Christopher Kirk, Verónica Krapovickas, Michael Malinzak, Sergio D. Matheos, Nahuel A. Muñoz, Barbara Nash, Jorge I. Noriega, Edgardo Ortiz-Jaureguizar, Ana Parras, María E. Pérez, Michael E. Perkins, Jonathan M. G. Perry, J. Michael Plavcan, Francisco J. Prevosti, M. Sol Raigemborn, Luciano L. Rasia, Adán A. Tauber, Marcelo F. Tejedor, Néstor Toledo, Guillermo F. Turazzini, Amalia L. Villafañe, Sergio F. Vizcaíno, Alejandro F. Zucol
- Edited by Sergio F. Vizcaíno, Richard F. Kay, Duke University, North Carolina, M. Susana Bargo
-
- Book:
- Early Miocene Paleobiology in Patagonia
- Published online:
- 05 June 2013
- Print publication:
- 11 October 2012, pp vi-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
16 - Paleobiology of Santacrucian primates
- Edited by Sergio F. Vizcaíno, Richard F. Kay, Duke University, North Carolina, M. Susana Bargo
-
- Book:
- Early Miocene Paleobiology in Patagonia
- Published online:
- 05 June 2013
- Print publication:
- 11 October 2012, pp 306-330
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Abstract Over the past century, the Santa Cruz Formation of coastal Argentina (late Early Miocene) has yielded a remarkable collection of platyrrhine primates. With few notable exceptions, most of the specimens have been included in
Ameghino, 1891, a stem platyrrhineHomunculus patagonicus . Homunculus patagonicus was approximately 1.5 to 2.5 kg in body mass, about the size of a living saki monkey (Pithecia ) or a femaleCebus . Molar structure indicates that the diet consisted of a mixture of fruit and leaves. A deep jaw, large postcanine tooth roots, large postglenoid processes and moderately large chewing muscle attachments (i.e. massive zygomatic arches, sculpted temporalis origins) suggest that physically resistant foods were key components of the diet. Heavy tooth wear suggests large amounts of ingested silica or exogenous abrasives. Incisor morphology suggests that exudate harvesting may have been part of the behavioral repertoire, although not a specialization. The canines were small, providing no evidence of sclerocarpic foraging. Canines were sexually dimorphic, suggesting that the taxon experienced some intrasexual competition rather than being solitary or pair-bonded. Brain size was small and the frontal cortical region was proportionately small. From the small size and structure of the orbits, the structure of the organ of hearing, the reduced olfactory fossae and the relatively large infraorbital foramina, we infer thatHomunculus was probably diurnal, with acute vision and hearing, but with a poor sense of smell and little reliance on tactile vibrissae.Homunculus was an above-branch arboreal quadruped with leaping abilities. The semicircular canals show evidence of considerable agility, reinforcing the inference of leaping behavior. The overall locomotor repertoire is not unlike that of the forest-dwelling extant saki monkeyPithecia . Considered together, the mosaic of dietary and locomotor morphology inHomunculus suggests thatHomunculus inhabited an environment – as compared with earlier Colhuehuapian and Pinturan primate habitats – shifting towards greater seasonality in patchy forests near river courses.
2 - Tephrochronology of the Miocene Santa Cruz and Pinturas Formations, Argentina
- Edited by Sergio F. Vizcaíno, Richard F. Kay, Duke University, North Carolina, M. Susana Bargo
-
- Book:
- Early Miocene Paleobiology in Patagonia
- Published online:
- 05 June 2013
- Print publication:
- 11 October 2012, pp 23-40
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Abstract The Santa Cruz and Pinturas Formations (SCF and PF) are two partially coeval formations in the southern part of Santa Cruz Province, Argentina, that were deposited during the Early to Middle Miocene. The SCF underlies the coastal plain between 47.0° and 51.6° S and extends from the Atlantic Coast into the Andean foothills. The PF has a more restricted distribution centered on eastern tributaries of the Rio Pinturas along the northern perimeter of the SCF. Both formations have abundant tephra and tuffaceous sediments with likely sources in volcanoes associated with emplacement of the late Cenozoic South Patagonian batholith. This study re-evaluates the age of the SCF and the relationship of the SCF to the PF, adding some radiometric dates to those previously published and using the methods of tephrochronology. Tephra samples were collected from 26 localities in the SCF and PF. Glass shards were analyzed by electron microscopy. Ten tephra samples were analyzed by the 40Ar/39Ar method: nine from the SCF and one from the PF. Results of these analyses, in conjunction with previous studies, indicate that there are at least 38 individual tephra layers in the SCF, while there are likely many more tephra than the six analyzed from the PF. Of the 38 tephra layers in the SCF, 16 are shared by two or more sections, with one key tephra, the Toba Blanca, present in eight and possibly nine localities from 51.6° S northward to 47.0° S, over a distance of ~525 km. Integrating results of the tephra correlations and radiometric ages indicates that the SCF spans the interval ~18 Ma to 16 Ma in the Atlantic coastal plain and ~19 to 14 Ma in the Andean foothills, with a chronologic overlap between the PF and lower part of the SCF. With this tephrochronology in place, studies of space-time variations such as rates of sediment accumulation, composition of mammalian faunas, facies changes, and other aspects of the SCF and PF can be fruitfully pursued.
3 - Absolute and relative ages of fossil localities in the Santa Cruz and Pinturas Formations
- Edited by Sergio F. Vizcaíno, Richard F. Kay, Duke University, North Carolina, M. Susana Bargo
-
- Book:
- Early Miocene Paleobiology in Patagonia
- Published online:
- 05 June 2013
- Print publication:
- 11 October 2012, pp 41-58
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Abstract Santa Cruz Province, Argentina, has some of the richest fossil mammal localities in the world. However, the absolute and relative ages of its fossil localities have long been a source of confusion and debate. In particular, there has been longstanding disagreement about the relative ages of the fossils from the western part of the province in deposits of the Pinturas Formation compared with those from the numerous localities of the Santa Cruz Formation along the Atlantic coast. Drawing on recent studies of the tuffaceous sediments in many classic fossil localities, and studies of fossil representatives of marsupials, rodents, and primates, we provide a synthesis of the temporal relationship among fossil localities throughout the province. There is broad agreement between the results of the tephrochronology and mammalian paleontology. Both tephra correlations and paleontological comparisons indicate that the lower units of the Pinturas Formation are older than the sections of the Santa Cruz Formation preserved at Monte León and Cerro Observatorio, supporting Ameghino's suggestion that part of the Pinturas Formation represents a distinct faunal zone. However, the upper unit of the Pinturas Formation seems to correspond in age with the lower part of the sections at Monte León and Cerro Observatorio.
16 - The evolution of primate ecology: patterns of geography and phylogeny
-
- By John G. Fleagle, Department of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, Health Sciences Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794–8081, USA, Kaye E. Reed, Institute of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Box 874101, Tempe, AZ, 85287-4101, USA
- Edited by Fred Anapol, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Rebecca Z. German, University of Cincinnati, Nina G. Jablonski, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco
-
- Book:
- Shaping Primate Evolution
- Published online:
- 10 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 20 May 2004, pp 353-367
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Over four decades, Charles Oxnard has been a relentless pioneer in expanding the quantitative horizons of research in primate and human evolution. His many works using multivariate analyses to elucidate and amplify our understanding of the primate shoulder, the primate foot, primate locomotion, prosimians, primate limb proportions, and the relationships of early hominids are well known and widely cited (Ashton et al., 1965, 1975, 1976; Oxnard, 1981, 1984). Less widely cited are his efforts with Robin Crompton and Susan Lieberman to use many of the same quantitative techniques to examine broad patterns in primate behavior and ecology (Crompton et al., 1987; Oxnard et al., 1990). In recent years we have made several efforts to redress this oversight (Fleagle and Reed, 1996, 1999a; Reed, 1999), and it seems particularly appropriate to provide here a general summary of that work. Charles Oxnard is more than a gifted quantitative biologist; he is also a person who delights in reducing the seemingly insurmountable complexity of nature to simple and often esthetically pleasing patterns. Yet, at the same time, he has always been keen to push his analyses one more step and demonstrate that a dataset may yield very different patterns when viewed from a slightly different perspective. Accordingly, in the spirit of Charles's work we will concentrate on some of the broader patterns that emerge from our studies of primate communities when we look at the same dataset from a slightly different perspective.
3 - Patterns of diversity in gorilla cranial morphology
-
- By Rebecca M. Stumpf, Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., John D. Polk, Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., John F. Oates, Department of Anthropology, Hunter College CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, U.S.A., William L. Jungers, Department of Anatomical Sciences Health Sciences Center and Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., Christopher P. Heesy, Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., Colin P. Groves, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, John G. Fleagle, Department of Anatomical Sciences Health Sciences Center and Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A.
- Edited by Andrea B. Taylor, Duke University, North Carolina, Michele L. Goldsmith, Tufts University, Massachusetts
-
- Book:
- Gorilla Biology
- Published online:
- 11 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 05 December 2002, pp 35-61
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Gorillas, perhaps because of their size, always seem to be the subject of spectacularly divergent interpretations. Views of their behavior have ranged from the rapacious, vicious giant ape of the nineteenth century, through Robert Ardrey's (1961) view of them as lethargic, depressed, evolutionary dead ends, to the current view of them as gentle giants, albeit with infanticidal tendencies. Views of gorilla systematics have been no less diverse over the past century and a half (see review by Groves, this volume). Beginning with the initial description of Gorilla gorilla by Savage and Wyman in 1847 through the 1920s, ten separate species of Gorilla were described by systematists from all over the world, often from a single skull. The modern systematics of Gorilla stems from the work of Harold Jefferson Coolidge in 1929. Coolidge reviewed all of the previously described species and provided measurements and graphs of 213 specimens from seven major geographic regions. He placed all gorillas in a single species, Gorilla gorilla, in accordance with others such as Rothschild (1906), Elliot (1913), and Schwarz (1928), but went even further in identifying only two subspecies – Gorilla gorilla gorilla for the gorillas of western and central Africa, and Gorilla gorilla beringei for gorillas from the Virunga mountains and adjacent regions.
More recently, Gorilla systematics has derived almost exclusively from Groves's (1970, 1986; also Groves and Stott, 1979) study of 747 skulls and over 100 skeletons.
1 - Multivariate and phylogenetic approaches to understanding chimpanzee and bonobo behavioral diversity
- Edited by Christophe Boesch, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany, Gottfried Hohmann, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany
- Linda Marchant, Miami University
-
- Book:
- Behavioural Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos
- Published online:
- 08 February 2010
- Print publication:
- 01 August 2002, pp 14-34
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Primates exhibit considerable diversity in their social systems (Smuts et al. 1987), a phenomenon that is thought to have evolved through the interaction of many factors. These include: (1) ecological variables, particularly predation pressure and the abundance and distribution of food (Alexander 1974; Wrangham 1979, 1980, 1987; van Schaik 1983, 1989, 1996; Sterck et al. 1997); (2) social factors, primarily sexual selection and the potential risk of infanticide (Wrangham 1979; Watts 1989; van Schaik 1996); (3) demographic and life history variables (DeRousseau 1990; Ross 1998); and (4) phylogenetic constraints (Wilson 1975; DiFiore & Rendall 1994). Generally, tests of models of the effect of these variables on behavior have been made through broad comparisons of many taxa, usually across genera (Wrangham 1980; van Schaik 1989; DiFiore & Rendall 1994; Sterck et al. 1997). There have been fewer attempts to consider the influence of these factors on variability in social organization within and between closely related taxa, largely as a result of a dearth of species for which such data are available (but see Mitchell et al. 1991; Koenig et al. 1998; Boinski 1999; Barton 2000). In addition, most tests have focused intensively on a single class of traits, and their proposed influence on behavior (e.g. the influence of ecology on behavior, van Schaik 1989; but see Nunn & van Schaik 2000), rather than the role of all proposed factors. To date, no study has quantitatively examined the combined influence of ecology, habitat, demography, and phylogeny on behavior.
6 - Phylogenetic and temporal perspectives on primate ecology
- Edited by J. G. Fleagle, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Charles Janson, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Kaye Reed, Arizona State University
-
- Book:
- Primate Communities
- Published online:
- 21 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 October 1999, pp 92-115
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
As many studies in this volume and elsewhere have noted, there are persistent differences in the ecological characteristics of the individual species assemblages found on different continents (Terborgh & van Schaik, 1987; Fleagle & Reed, 1996; Kappeler & Heymann, 1996). For example, the primates of the Neotropics tend to be smaller and less ecologically diverse than those of other continents, while Madagascar has a larger number of folivores than other biogeographical areas. It seems almost certain that the differences between the primate assemblages of different biogeographical regions are the result of many causal factors and their interactions, including differences in productivity, in the composition of the plant communities, in climate and soil, and in the potential for competition with other groups of vertebrates. These factors are examined in other chapters of this volume.
However, the primate assemblages we see today are not simply epiphenomena of present ecological conditions. Rather, they are also the product of evolutionary and ecological processes that have been ongoing for millions of years. Environments are not stable today, and they never have been; they are constantly changing. The temporal scale of environmental change ranges from decades and centuries for human-induced activities of habitat destruction such as logging, land clearing, hunting, or introduction of exotic species (Struhsaker, chapter 17, this volume) and also for natural epidemics. Global climatic cycles seem to have periodicities ranging from a few years, such as the El Niño phenomena to tens of thousands of years for the glacial cycles that have dominated the past two million years (Tutin & White, chapter 13, this volume; Potts, 1994).
11 - Comparing communities
- Edited by J. G. Fleagle, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Charles Janson, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Kaye Reed, Arizona State University
-
- Book:
- Primate Communities
- Published online:
- 21 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 October 1999, pp 189-190
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Following upon the chapters in the first section of this volume, which provided geographically restricted overviews of a single biogeographical region, the chapters in this section have provided broad comparisons between the primates of different regions. Fleagle & Reed (chapter 6) review the fossil record of primate evolution over the past 60 million years and examine the relationship between quantitative measures of ecological distance and phylogenetic divergence times within and between communities in the four major geographical regions. Their results indicate that the rate of ecological divergence between pairs of taxa is constant for primates of all regions, but that the strength of the correlation varies depending upon the biogeographical history of the region. They find a major distinction between the extant faunas of Africa and Asia, which contain elements from many different radiations from the past 60 million years and show a high correlation between divergence time and ecological distance, and the faunas of South America and Madagascar that are the result of more temporally restricted explosive radiations.
In contrast to most of the chapters in this volume which compare communities in terms of the component species, Reed's chapter 7 compares modern communities in the four geographical areas from the perspective of how much primate biomass is supported by different types of resources. Comparing the body masses of primates in different regions, she finds Asian communities stand out in having a very restricted size range compared with primates of the other regions.
Ganzhorn (chapter 8) compares patterns of body mass among the primate communities of different biogeographical regions to examine the extent to which there is evidence for competition among primate species within communities.
5 - Primate diversity
- Edited by J. G. Fleagle, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Charles Janson, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Kaye Reed, Arizona State University
-
- Book:
- Primate Communities
- Published online:
- 21 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 October 1999, pp 90-91
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The chapters in this section have provided a series of geographically focused reviews of the diversity of ecological communities in the four major biogeographical regions currently inhabited by non-human primates – Africa, Asia, Madagascar, and the neotropics of South and Central America. The comparative data that are available for these different regions are by no means uniform. As a result, these chapters not only offer an opportunity to compare the similarities and differences in the primate communities of these different regions, but also highlight the gaps in our current knowledge. Despite differences in the scope and focus of the different chapters, several general themes emerge in the intraregional studies found in this section.
In all of the chapters, the authors emphasized that there are very few primate communities in the world today that have not been affected in some way by human activity (see also Tutin & White, chapter 13, Peres, chapter 15 and Struhsaker, chapter 17, this volume). In addition, it is important to keep in mind that many of the sites where primates have been most thoroughly studied have often been chosen precisely because they have extremely high numbers of species and often easy access from roads. As a result all comparisons either within regions or between them need to make some attempt to take these factors into consideration.
16 - Spatial and temporal scales in primate community structure
- Edited by J. G. Fleagle, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Charles Janson, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Kaye Reed, Arizona State University
-
- Book:
- Primate Communities
- Published online:
- 21 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 October 1999, pp 284-288
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The chapters in the preceding section have reviewed evidence that the present structure of primate communities is affected by resource abundance (Janson & Chapman, chapter 14, Peres, chapter 15), food quality and digestive strategies (Janson & Chapman), seasonality (Janson & Chapman; Tutin & White, chapter 13), disease (Tutin & White), contemporary hunting (Peres), recent land-use history (Tutin & White), climatic change in the recent past and the Pleistocene (Tutin & White; Eeley & Lawes, chapter 12), and regional species source pools (Eeley & Lawes; Peres). Despite the diversity of these themes, they fall into two broad contrasts which we shall use to review the preceding results: (1) local vs. regional explanations of primate community structure; and (2) equilibrial vs. nonequilibrial views of community structure.
LOCAL VS. REGIONAL DETERMINANTS OF PRIMATE COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
There is a tension between explanations that rely on local versus regional ecological factors to explain local site diversity. Local factors include resource abundance and quality, seasonality, competition and contemporary hunting. Regional analysis focuses on regional source pools of species – a local site cannot have a primate species that is not in the regional source pool. This distinction is essentially parallel to that between alpha-and gamma-diversity in community ecology. Alpha-diversity reflects the number of coexisting species in a single site, whereas gamma-diversity includes additional species that may replace each other in separate areas of similar habitat only because of geographical isolation. Proponents of local factors find support in the fact that primate population densities predictably increase in areas of greater soil fertility (Peres), high food quality (Janson & Chapman), and low hunting pressure (Peres).
Preface
- Edited by J. G. Fleagle, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Charles Janson, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Kaye Reed, Arizona State University
-
- Book:
- Primate Communities
- Published online:
- 21 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 October 1999, pp ix-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
During the last four decades, the primates of Africa, Asia, Madagascar and South America have been the subject of hundreds of field studies involving millions of hours of observation. Despite this remarkable effort, there have been only a handful of attempts to undertake broad comparisons of the primate faunas in different biogeographical regions in order to document and understand their similarities and differences. This volume is an effort to make a start in addressing that major gap in our understanding of primate evolution. By bringing together a group of researchers with many decades of combined experience in all the major regions of the world inhabited by primates today, we hoped to summarize our current understanding of the factors determining primate community biology, highlight the many lacunae in our knowledge, and provide a baseline for future research in the area.
Like many projects of this nature, this one has a long history and has only been possible through the efforts and generosity of many people and organizations, especially the citizens and governments of countries inhabited by non-human primates today who have permitted and supported the research by primate field workers that ultimately formed the basis of the studies summarized here. The Wenner–Gren Foundation provided funds, and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin provided the space, for a workshop on “Primate Communities” in 1996 that enabled many of the authors to discuss this topic face-to-face over three intense days in Madison, Wisconsin. We especially thank Dr Sydel Silverman, President of the Wenner–Gren Foundation, and Drs Karen Strier and Margaret Schoeninger for their support of the workshop. Joan Kelly was indispensable in organizing the workshop.
19 - Concluding remarks
- Edited by J. G. Fleagle, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Charles Janson, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Kaye Reed, Arizona State University
-
- Book:
- Primate Communities
- Published online:
- 21 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 October 1999, pp 310-314
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The goal of this volume was to bring together the efforts of scientists with research interests and experience from many parts of the world to provide a comparative perspective of the primate communities or assemblages from different biogeographical regions. The preceding chapters have taken a wide range of approaches to the study of communities including: (1) broad surveys and analyses of the diversity of communities within individual regions; (2) detailed examinations of the factors that underlie community differences at both a microecological level and a macroecological level; (3) comparative study of the relationship between primate diversity and that of other aspects of the fauna and of the flora; and (4) attempts to put extant communities in a temporal perspective through examination of the history of individual and regional faunas and habitats, as well as attempts to predict changes that primate communities are likely to undergo in the coming years if present patterns of extinction continue.
COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES
In general, most authors seemed to find the differences among communities far more impressive than the overall similarities among communities. The chapters by Kappeler, Reed, and Ganzhorn (chapters 9, 7 and 8 respectively) found significant differences in the body size distributions of primates from different regions both at a regional level and for individual communities. Fleagle & Reed's chapter 6 (see also Fleagle & Reed, 1996) documented differences in the ecological space occupied by individual communities of primates of different regions. Recently, Jernvall & Wright (1998) obtained very similar results using the same technique on a different data set for the primates of entire biogeographic regions.