MacPhee R D, Cartmill M, Gingerich P D
Nature. 1983 Feb 10;301(5900):509-11. doi: 10.1038/301509a0.
The anatomy of the posterior basicranium has been repeatedly invoked in systematic definitions of Primates. One widely cited definition of the order claims that 'all undoubted primates' are distinguished from other mammals by two basicranial specializations: (1) absence of a major vascular foramen on the medial side of the auditory region, and (2) development of the auditory bulla from the petrosal bone. As we show here, specialization (1) does not apply to the paromomyid Ignacius, and is of uncertain incidence in other unquestioned members of suborder Plesiadapiformes (archaic primates from the early Cenozoic of Europe and North America). Specialization (2) cannot be demonstrated without ontogenetic evidence, and all relevant plesiadapiform fossils are adult. In fact, the only plesiadapiform with an arterial pattern remotely resembling that of early primates of modern aspect (or 'euprimates') is the microsyopid Cynodontomys, but it is often regarded as non-primate because it lacks a petrosal bulla. Although plesiadapiforms resemble euprimates in traits of the cheek teeth and postcranium, some other (presumably non-primate) groups possess these traits as well. Since the order Primates is not clearly definable by unique specializations, the best grounds for regarding plesiadapiforms as euprimate antecedents are stratigraphic and phenetic. This fact may be best expressed by systematic arrangements that emphasize adaptive grades rather than unsubstantiated clades.
后颅底的解剖结构在灵长类动物的系统定义中被反复提及。该目一个被广泛引用的定义称,“所有无疑的灵长类动物”与其他哺乳动物的区别在于两个颅底特化特征:(1)听觉区域内侧没有主要血管孔,(2)听泡由岩骨发育而来。正如我们在此所表明的,特化特征(1)不适用于副鼠科的伊格纳西乌斯,并且在近猴亚目(来自欧洲和北美早新生代的古老灵长类动物)的其他无疑的成员中发生率也不确定。没有个体发育证据就无法证明特化特征(2),而所有相关的近猴类化石都是成年个体。事实上,唯一一种动脉模式与现代外观的早期灵长类动物(或“真灵长类”)略有相似的近猴类是微鼠科的犬齿鼠,但它常被视为非灵长类动物,因为它没有岩骨听泡。尽管近猴类在颊齿和颅后骨骼特征上与真灵长类相似,但其他一些(大概是非灵长类)类群也具有这些特征。由于灵长目无法通过独特的特化特征明确界定,将近猴类视为真灵长类祖先的最佳依据是地层学和表型学。这一事实可能最好通过强调适应等级而非未经证实的分支的系统排列来体现。