Köhler Meike, Alba David M, Solà Salvador Moyà, MacLatchy Laura
Institut de Paleontologia M. Crusafont (DB-Unidad Asociada CSIC), 08201 Sabadell, Spain.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Dec;119(4):297-304. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10140.
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.
埃佩尔海姆股骨(即所谓的儿童古猿)的分类归属在一个多世纪以来一直不明确。多年来,由于与森林古猿有相似之处,一些作者认为它是一种大型森林古猿科动物,而另一些人则将其称为猿猴。这个问题一直无法解决,因为没有确凿的猿猴股骨可供参考。随着来自坎洛巴特雷斯(CLl 18800)的拉埃塔努斯猿猴骨骼的发现,现在有可能通过直接的形态学和测量学比较来检验埃佩尔海姆股骨是否属于猿猴。通过异速生长技术,我们发现,就相对长度和相对股骨头/颈大小而言,埃佩尔海姆股骨和拉埃塔努斯猿猴股骨符合不同的后肢形态,儿童古猿与猿猴有显著差异,但与森林古猿更相似。儿童古猿在其他重要方面也与猿猴不同,比如其颈干角较低、股骨头高于大转子的程度不足、小转子更向后、近端骨干直径在前后方向上比内外方向上更厚。尽管体重有所不同(分别约为22千克和10千克),但在这些特征上,儿童古猿与森林古猿最为相似。这些特征表明,儿童古猿采用了与树栖四足行走相关的原始运动模式,而不是猿猴所表现出的更进化的模式。目前可得的证据证实,儿童古猿属于猿猴的归属可以被否定。儿童古猿可能是一种大型且未知的森林古猿科动物,但也不能排除它代表第三种狭鼻猿的可能性。