Dryopithecus is an extinct genus of hominin, which probably existed about 22.5 to 5 million years ago, during the Middle and Upper Miocene and also part of the Pliocene. It spread across parts of Europe, Asia (Eurasia), and East Africa. Its origin is presumed to be African.
Dryopithecus is one of the 40 known genera of extinct apes, it was the first genus of hominids described for the Miocene, in the year 1856. Its morphological characteristics indicate that it is phylogenetically very close to the genus Ouranopithecus. Thought to be the Miocene ancestor of chimpanzees and gorillas.
The origin of the word Dryopithecus is Greek, where “Drys " means tree and "pithecus " monkey (the monkey of the trees). It was called that, because it is presumed that it spent a large part of its life in the trees.
Article index
The first fossil record of the genus Dryopithecus It was made in the middle of the 19th century (1856) by the French paleontologist and apprentice of the famous naturalist Georges Cuvier, Édouard Lartet.
Lartet made his discovery in the French town of Saint-Gaudens, in a clay deposit that was dated to the Middle Miocene epoch, approximately 13 million years old..
Based on the finding of a jaw, the French paleontologist described what would be the first report of a great fossil ape. This new discovery for science was called Dryopithecus fontani.
Members of the genus Dryopithecus They were characterized by relatively large canine teeth arranged in a vertical plane, not very robust. The incisor teeth were small and also vertical. The teeth presented diastema, that is, a considerable space between each tooth.
The first premolar of the lower jaw had a bulge or tubercle, the lower premolars were wide, while the upper ones were long. The molars presented a thin enamel, they also had a very characteristic ridge pattern, called the Y5 or driopithecine pattern, where the fissures that separate the 5 molar cusps formed a Y.
The skull was made up of thin bones, without developed massive ridges. The eye sockets were large. The face, for its part, was small and slightly projected forward. Due to the size of the eye orbits, paleontologists believe that these organisms depended more on vision than smell.
It was relatively varied in size; paleontologists have found small, medium and large specimens, which could weigh between 15 to 50 kilograms, perhaps more.
Their skeletal structure indicates that they were quadruped and moved on four legs, but instead of resting their knuckles on the ground to move they supported the palm of the hand.
They could be suspended and swayed by the branches of the trees. Its limbs were relatively short, while its hands and feet had a powerful grasping ability. But, on the other hand, they lacked a tail.
Some general data suggest that gender Dryopithecus has a cranial capacity of between 350 to 500 cubic centimeters (cc), others suggest an endocranial capacity of only 150 cc, but on average it is established that it was between 305 and 329 cc, approximately.
The gender Dryopithecus It has a large number of fossil finds, of different species and of various sizes. Perhaps that is why the information regarding the cranial capacity of this taxon is so variable.
Both morphological and environmental evidences have allowed paleontologists to infer that the representatives of Dryopithecus they had herbivorous eating habits.
The diet of the species that make up the genus Dryopithecus consisted of soft foods such as fruits, leaves, flowers, and stems.
Numerous species of the genus have been described to date Dryopithecus, including several subspecies. However, this genus is one of the most controversial within the taxonomy of extinct hominids, being constantly under review. Among the species of the genus, relatively more stable taxonomically, are:
It was the first described species of the genus, as well as the first hominid described from the Miocene. It is distributed on the European continent, in France, Spain, Hungary, among others. It differs from other species of the same genus by having long upper premolars with two cusps and wide lower premolars.
Due to the time of its discovery, it is considered the first evidence obtained on the evolution of ancestral primates.
This species was described by scientists Xue Xiang Xu and Eric Delson in 1988. The type locality was Gansu Province, Wudu District, China. The epithet wuduensis or name of the species, comes from the region where it was discovered.
This species is believed to have inhabited Asia in the Upper and Lower Miocene. It differs morphologically from other species of the genus, by the size of the roots of the teeth, also by having smaller teeth, particularly the premolars.
Dryopithecus brancoi was described by Schlosser in 1901, as Anthropodus brancoi, and dedicated to the German paleontologist W. Branco, who in 1898 published the finding of the fossil of a hominid molar in the Salmendingen region, Germany, and who proposed that it could be from an organism belonging to the genus Dryopithecus.
A year after Schlosser's description, in 1902, a review of the group was made, and it was concluded that the genus Anthropodus was not valid, since it was a synonymy of another genre previously described.
In 1924, Hrdlicka concluded that the material found by Branco, as well as other fossil teeth found in southern Germany, belonged to organisms of the genus Dryopithecus, as suggested by Branco, so the species was taxonomically relocated to this genus and was renamed Dryopithecus brancoi.
The differentiation of this species with respect to others of its genus is based exclusively on the dentition. Remains of a skull found in Hungary and its reconstruction gave indications of new morphological data, which are considered hypothetical by the scientific community, as they are reconstruction and not complete structures.
This is a relatively newly described species, compared to the ones mentioned above. In 1992 D. Begun published his findings of a new species of hominid from the Western Valleys of Catalonia, Spain.
This new species was dedicated to the Catalan paleontologist Miquel Crusafont. The scientific community is divided regarding the validity of this species, because some consider that D. crusafonti is a synonym for Hispanopithecus laietanus, formerly named species Dryopithecus laietanus.
Yet No Comments