Urciuoli Alessandro, Alba David M
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain; Division of Palaeoanthropology, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici ICTA-ICP, c/ Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici ICTA-ICP, c/ Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
J Hum Evol. 2023 Feb;175:103309. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103309. Epub 2023 Jan 28.
Hominoids diverged from cercopithecoids during the Oligocene in Afro-Arabia, initially radiating in that continent and subsequently dispersing into Eurasia. From the Late Miocene onward, the geographic range of hominoids progressively shrank, except for hominins, which dispersed out of Africa during the Pleistocene. Although the overall picture of hominoid evolution is clear based on available fossil evidence, many uncertainties persist regarding the phylogeny and paleobiogeography of Miocene apes (nonhominin hominoids), owing to their sparse record, pervasive homoplasy, and the decimated current diversity of this group. We review Miocene ape systematics and evolution by focusing on the most parsimonious cladograms published during the last decade. First, we provide a historical account of the progress made in Miocene ape phylogeny and paleobiogeography, report an updated classification of Miocene apes, and provide a list of Miocene ape species-locality occurrences together with an analysis of their paleobiodiversity dynamics. Second, we discuss various critical issues of Miocene ape phylogeny and paleobiogeography (hylobatid and crown hominid origins, plus the relationships of Oreopithecus) in the light of the highly divergent results obtained from cladistic analyses of craniodental and postcranial characters separately. We conclude that cladistic efforts to disentangle Miocene ape phylogeny are potentially biased by a long-branch attraction problem caused by the numerous postcranial similarities shared between hylobatids and hominids-despite the increasingly held view that they are likely homoplastic to a large extent, as illustrated by Sivapithecus and Pierolapithecus-and further aggravated by abundant missing data owing to incomplete preservation. Finally, we argue that-besides the recovery of additional fossils, the retrieval of paleoproteomic data, and a better integration between cladistics and geometric morphometrics-Miocene ape phylogenetics should take advantage of total-evidence (tip-dating) Bayesian methods of phylogenetic inference combining morphologic, molecular, and chronostratigraphic data. This would hopefully help ascertain whether hylobatid divergence was more basal than currently supported.
类人猿在渐新世期间于非洲 - 阿拉伯地区与猕猴类分道扬镳，最初在该大陆辐射演化，随后扩散至欧亚大陆。从晚中新世起，除了在更新世期间从非洲扩散出去的人亚科原人外，类人猿的地理分布范围逐渐缩小。尽管基于现有化石证据，类人猿进化的总体情况较为清晰，但由于中新世猿类（非人亚科原人的类人猿）化石记录稀少、普遍存在同塑性以及该类群当前多样性大幅减少，其系统发育和古生物地理学仍存在许多不确定性。我们通过关注过去十年发表的最简约分支图来回顾中新世猿类的系统分类和进化。首先，我们对中新世猿类系统发育和古生物地理学所取得的进展进行历史记述，报告中新世猿类的更新分类，并提供中新世猿类物种 - 产地出现情况列表以及对其古生物多样性动态的分析。其次，鉴于分别对颅骨和颅后特征进行分支分析得到的结果差异极大，我们讨论中新世猿类系统发育和古生物地理学的各种关键问题（长臂猿科和冠类人猿的起源，以及奥氏猴的关系）。我们得出结论，尽管越来越多的人认为长臂猿科和类人猿之间的许多颅后相似性在很大程度上可能是同塑性的，如西瓦古猿和皮耶罗古猿所示，但由于保存不完整导致大量数据缺失，分支分析在解开中新世猿类系统发育关系时可能受到长枝吸引问题的潜在影响，进而使情况更加复杂。最后，我们认为，除了发现更多化石、获取古蛋白质组数据以及更好地整合分支分析和几何形态计量学外，中新世猿类系统发育学应利用结合形态学、分子和年代地层数据的全证据（末端定年）贝叶斯系统发育推断方法。这有望有助于确定长臂猿科的分化是否比目前所支持的更为基础。
