Why did the apes split from the monkeys between the Oligocence (34-23 mya) and the Miocence (23-5 mya)? Michael Balter.

Nov 25, 2017, 02:26 AM

Best of JBS. (Photo: A small Miocene diorama from the old dinosaur museum display at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Date 21 January 2007 Source Own Work (photo) Author Keith Schengili-Roberts Permission (Reusing this file) Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow

Why did the apes split from the monkeys between the Oligocence (34-23 mya) and the Miocene (23-5 mya)? Michael Balter.

“The team, which reports its discoveries online today in Nature, points out that the split between early apes and Old World monkeys took place during a time of dramatic environmental, climatic, and tectonic changes in East Africa. Indeed, the Oligocene-Miocene boundary was marked by numerous tumultuous geological events, including a collision between the land masses that make up Africa and Arabia on one side and Europe and other parts of Asia on the other. However, just why those changes led the two groups to split "is one of the mysteries we would like to solve" by further research, Stevens says, although she thinks that it could be related to changes in the kinds of food resources available to the primates.

Michael Steiper, an anthropological geneticist at Hunter College in New York City who has conducted numerous molecular studies of primate evolution, welcomes the new findings. "At long last they reconcile the fossil and molecular records of early apes and monkeys," he says.

And Fleagle, after whom one of the species was named, calls the discoveries "a wonderful story of perseverance" over many years of research. As for the team's claims to have found the earliest known ape and Old World monkey ancestors, he says that "their identifications are as good as they can be with the material in hand." The "real split" between the groups could have taken place even earlier, he says.

But Terry Harrison, an anthropologist at New York University in New York City, cautions that the team's claims could be wrong. "Despite the seductiveness of the conclusions, I'm skeptical about the interpretations," he says. Harrison thinks that Rukwapithecus, the claimed ape ancestor, could represent a primate that actually predates the ape-monkey split and that the dental features used to identify it as an ape are "questionable"; and he argues that Nsungwepithecus might not even be a primate, but rather a suiform artiodactyl, a piglike, hoofed animal. "Similar cases of mistaken identity have occurred in the past," Harrison says, including claims for Miocene primates in East Africa that turned out to be artiodactyls and other nonprimates.”