Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface: shaping primate evolution
- 1Charles Oxnard: an appreciation
- Part ICraniofacial form and variation
- Part IIOrgan structure, function, and behavior
- Part IIIIn vivo organismal verification of functional models
- Part IVTheoretical models in evolutionary morphology
- Part VPrimate diversity and evolution
- 16The evolution of primate ecology: patterns of geography and phylogeny
- 17Charles Oxnard and the aye-aye: morphometrics, cladistics, and two very special primates
- 18From “mathematical dissection of anatomies” to morphometrics: a twenty-first-century appreciation of Charles Oxnard
- 19Design, level, interface, and complexity: morphometric interpretation revisited
- 20Postscript and acknowledgments
- Index
- References
17 - Charles Oxnard and the aye-aye: morphometrics, cladistics, and two very special primates
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 August 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface: shaping primate evolution
- 1Charles Oxnard: an appreciation
- Part ICraniofacial form and variation
- Part IIOrgan structure, function, and behavior
- Part IIIIn vivo organismal verification of functional models
- Part IVTheoretical models in evolutionary morphology
- Part VPrimate diversity and evolution
- 16The evolution of primate ecology: patterns of geography and phylogeny
- 17Charles Oxnard and the aye-aye: morphometrics, cladistics, and two very special primates
- 18From “mathematical dissection of anatomies” to morphometrics: a twenty-first-century appreciation of Charles Oxnard
- 19Design, level, interface, and complexity: morphometric interpretation revisited
- 20Postscript and acknowledgments
- Index
- References
Summary
The aye-aye and the question of strepsirhine monophyly
The two suborders of primates, Haplorhini and Strepsirhini, are distinguished clearly by four well-studied and anatomically complex characters:
The possession by Strepsirhini of a rhinarium. A rhinarium is widespread among mammals generally, and its possession by Strepsirhini among primates is undoubtedly plesiomorphic.
The presence in Strepsirhini of a tapetum lucidum in the eye. Although a tapetum is likewise widespread among mammals, its structure differs from one group to another, so its polarity among primates is unclear.
The existence of a fovea in the retina in the Haplorhini. A retinal fovea appears to be unique to Haplorhini, except that an approach to it is seen in Lemur catta and Hapalemur griseus (Pariente, 1970). The most parsimonious interpretation is that it is a haplorhine apomorphy, and that there has been some convergent development of one in the two lemurid taxa cited.
A complex of characters of the fetal membranes, such that the placenta is hemochorial in Haplorhini but epitheliochorial in Strepsirhini. Martin (1990), noting that some trophoblastic invasion occurs in two species of galago, argued that the primitive state is endotheliochorial, and that consequently both epitheliochorial and hemochorial states are derived; but the cladistic analysis of Luckett (1993) concluded that the condition in the Strepsirhini is primitive.
It would appear, therefore, that of these four characters the Strepsirhini are questionably derived in only one, the presence of a tapetum. Otherwise, they are defined only by plesiomorphic retentions. What, then, is the evidence that the Strepsirhini really are monophyletic?
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shaping Primate EvolutionForm, Function, and Behavior, pp. 368 - 377Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004
References
and (1994). Evolution of the primate cytochrome c oxidase subunit II gene. J. Mol. Evol., 38, 215–231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Deciduous dentition of the aye aye, Daubentonia madagascariensis. Amer. J. Primatol., 39, 87–973.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1978). The orbital mosaic in prosimians and the use of variable traits in systematics. Folia Primatol., 30, 89–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutrillaux, B. and Rumpler, Y. (1995). Phylogenetic relations among Prosimii with special reference to Lemuriformes and Malagasy nocturnals. In: Creatures of the Dark: the Nocturnal Prosimians, ed. L. Alterman, G. A. Doyle, and M. K. Izard. New York, NY: Plenum Press. pp. 141–150CrossRef
and (1988). Foot anatomy, climbing, and the origin of the Indriidae. J. Hum. Evol., 17, 135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, C. P. (1974). Taxonomy and phylogeny of prosimians. In: Prosimian Biology, ed. R. D. Martin, G. A. Doyle, and A. C. Walker. London: Duckworth. pp. 449–473
Luckett, W. P. (1993). Developmental evidence from the fetal membranes for assessing archontan relationships. In: Primates and their Relatives in Phylogenetic Perspective, ed. R. D. E. MacPhee. New York, NY: Plenum Press. pp. 149–186CrossRef
and (1986). Developmental evidence for anterior tooth homologies in the aye-aye, Daubentonia. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 69, 233Google Scholar
Martin, R. D. (1990). Primate Origins and Evolution. London: Chapman and Hall
(1981b). The place of man among the primates: anatomical, molecular and morphometric evidence. Homo, 32, 149–176Google Scholar
(1970). Rétinographies comparées des Lémuriens malgaches. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 270D, 1404–1407Google Scholar
(1866a). Ueber die Säugethiergattung Chiromys. Abh. Kön. Preuss. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1886, 78–100Google Scholar
(1866b). Nachtrag zu seiner Abhandlung über Chiromys. Abh. Kön. Preuss. Akad. Wissensch.Berlin, 1886, 221–222Google Scholar
and (1965). Persistence du phénomène d'ovogénèse chez l'adulte de Daubentonia madagascariensis. Folia Primatol., 3, 241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and (1995). Evidence on primate phylogeny from ε-globin gene sequences and flanking regions. J. Mol. Evol., 50, 30–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1972). Coussinets palmo-plantaires et dermatoglyphes des représentants des lémuriformes malgaches. Bull. Assoc. Anat., 154, 1127–1143Google Scholar
and (1985). Evolutionary relationships of living lemurs and lorises (Mammalia, Primates) and their potential affinities with European Eocene Adapidae. Anthropol. Pap. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 60, 1–100Google Scholar
, , , and (1996). Primate phylogeny: morphological vs molecular results. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 5, 102–154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1999). Nails and claws in primate evolution. J. Hum. Evol., 36, 97–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1997). Phylogenetic affinities among the extant Malagasy lemurs (Lemuriformes) based on morphology and behavior. J. Mamm. Evol., 4, 163–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1998). Support for a monophyletic Lemuriformes: overcoming incongruence between data partitions. Mol. Biol. Evol., 15, 1572–1577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1982). Two misconceptions of phylogeny and classification. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 57, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1974). Craniodental morphology and the systematics of the Malagasy lemurs (Primates, Prosimii). Anthropol. Pap. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 52, 139–192Google Scholar
(1997). Back to the future: a synthesis of strepsirhine systematics. Evol. Anthropol., 6, 11–223.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.