Body mass in cercopithecidae (Primates Mammalia) Estimation and scaling in extinct and extant taxa.код для вставкиСкачать
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 118:406 – 409 (2002) Book Reviews BODY MASS IN CERCOPITHECIDAE (PRIMATES, MAMMALIA): ESTIMATION AND SCALING IN EXTINCT AND EXTANT TAXA. ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS, NUMBER 83. By Eric Delson, Carl J. Terranova, William L. Jungers, Eric J. Sargis, Nina G. Jablonski, and Paul C. Dechow. New York: American Museum of Natural History. 2000. 159 pp. ISSN 0065-9452. $16.50 (paper). This monograph, Body Mass in Cercopithecidae (Primates, Mammalia); Estimation and Scaling in Extinct and Extant Taxa, by Delson et al., is of interest to scholars (especially graduate students and professionals) whose research focuses on allometry, sexual dimorphism, estimation of body size in fossil taxa, cercopithecoid evolution, evolutionary changes in body size through time, and the relationship between ecological and morphological variables and body size. The main purpose of this monograph is to develop reliable equations for determining body size in fossil cercopithecoid taxa, using ordinary bivariate least squares regression. Once this is accomplished, the second half of the monograph focuses on using the equations to estimate body mass for nearly all known fossil Old World monkeys. The monograph is an extremely valuable resource for anyone studying Old World monkeys. First, it provides body weights for male and female extant cercopithecoids by individual (Appendix Table 1) and grouped data by sex within species (Appendix Table 2). The authors took great pains to compile body weight data for extant monkeys from individual museum specimens and from highly reliable published primary and secondary sources. Second, it provides what may be the best current estimates for fossil cercopithecoids (Tables 14 –17). The monograph is likely to be cited frequently because of these tables. The first half of the monograph describes the materials and methods used by the authors to develop their equations, and compares the predictive reliability of their equations to those of previous studies. Unlike studies that use all primate or all anthropoid regressions to predict the body weight of extinct cercopithecoids, this study restricts the analysis to extant cercopithecoids, and even to subfamily and sexed subfamily groups in an effort to make more accurate body mass predictions when sex and subgroup are known for a fossil taxon. The equations for predicting body mass are generated based on 35 variables from the postcranium, dentition, and cranium for all cercopithecoids, for each subfamily, and for sexed groups within each subfamily (Table 7). The relative reliability of each equation is judged by the mean prediction error (MPE, discussed on p. 18), which has an inverse relationship with reliability. A further test for reliability is carried out by calculating mass for a subset of 20 extant spe© 2002 WILEY-LISS, INC. cies (Table 9), including some (e.g., Mandrillus sphinx and Macaca sylanus) for which reliable body weight data became available after the study. Of 95 total cases tested (by group and body region), 66 estimates (about 70%) were within 20% of the actual compiled body mass for a species. The authors argue that 20% is the closest that one can expect to come to a species’ mean, based on the regression equations. Most errors in estimating body mass were encountered when mean mass was calculated for the largest and smallest species, or when cranial variables were used. In general, postcranial and dental variables were found to be more reliable indicators of body mass than cranial variables. A series of reduced major-axis regression equations was used to further investigate the relationship between skeletal or dental dimensions and body mass for each subgroup (Table 11). The application of the equations to estimating body mass for fossil cercopithecoid taxa is fairly straightforward. The most problematic estimate is for the Miocene fossil colobine Microcolobus tugenesis. In fact, the only mistake I found in the tables concerns this species, for which predictions of body weight using the male regression model are listed as postcranial body weight estimates rather than dental estimates (Table 14, p. 52). The only known specimen of M. tugenensis is a mandible identified by myself as female, based on the minimal size of the P3 honing facet. One of the authors (Eric Delson) questions the sex determination for the specimen, because the body mass prediction based on the female colobine regression seems too high at 8 kg (p. 50). Alternative hypotheses are never considered by the authors, e.g., that a cercopithecine regression may be more appropriate for the species since it may not yet have evolved a sacculated stomach (the specimen has a lower than expected shear quotient for a colobine), or perhaps that the species does not fit any of the extant cercopithecoid-based models. A tendency to use body mass predictions to determine the sex and correct species designation of specimens occurs at least two more times. The suggestion is made that the unsexed mandible of Prohylobates simonsi is “likely to be male,” based on the fact that the male equations produce an estimate of 20 kg and the female regression equations an estimate of 30 – 40 kg for the species (p. 82). P. simonsi is highly unusual among cercopithecoids in terms of its tooth proportions. I would be surprised if modern cercopithecoid regressions could reliably predict its body mass. To suggest the sex of this specimen based on its predicted mass seems absurd. Estimates of male and female body mass for fossil Papio hamadryas are similarly used to suggest that levels of sexual dimorphism are not so low as to “question its inclusion in the living species” (p. 76). Aside from making taxonomic inferences from body mass predictions, the monograph makes very BOOK REVIEWS few inferences based on the large number of body mass estimates made for all fossil primates. Plots of body mass estimates for male and female fossil colobines (Fig. 15) and cercopithecines (Figs. 16–19) are fascinating and should be useful to everyone studying the evolution of Old World monkeys and of body size. In summary, this monograph is an excellent one. Given its low price, it is a bargain. PRIMATE TAXONOMY. By Colin Groves. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 2001. 350 pp. ISBN 1-56098-872-X. $65.00 (cloth). Readers of this Journal should need no convincing that sound taxonomy is required if we are to be effective at researching any aspect of primate biology. However, it is such a fundamental requirement that we take it for granted that someone, somewhere, is working away curating the taxonomy of the group we are interested in. Perhaps because of my own background, the best analogy I can think of for what we expect of taxonomy is related to medicine. When our specialists advise us about how to treat a medical condition, we want them to be up to date, but also to have a healthy skepticism about the hype that so often accompanies announcements about the latest advances in therapy. So it is with taxonomy. We want it to reflect recent advances in the relevant sciences, but we also want it to have sufficient stability so that it does not change in response to every passing fad. Colin Groves is one of a small and dwindling number of scientists who concentrate their energy and scholarship on matters taxonomic. His interests extend beyond the primates, but he has sensed the need for scientists who are consumers of primate taxonomy to have access to an up-to-date statement about the best way to reflect primate diversity in a taxonomy. Perhaps it is appropriate that this book is a hybrid. Just over 50 of its 350 pages are devoted to explaining what taxonomy is and how it should be practiced. First, the good news. The 10-page history of primate taxonomy is a delight. It is “vintage Groves,” with interesting historical detail interlarded with engaging asides about the personalities involved. The guide to nomenclatural rectitude is also helpful. The bad news, for me at least, is that the sections on taxonomic methods, and on what species are, failed to provide what I was looking for. The section on “relatedness” is shaky. There are occasional confusions between a phylogenetic tree and a cladogram and between paradigm and hypodigm, there is unnecessary ambiguity about the role that cladistics plays in alpha taxonomy, and the definition of polyphyly is unconventional. As for the section on species definitions, without denying the occasional difficulties encountered by neontologists, the real problem with species concepts is whether and how they can be applied to the paleontological 407 BRENDA R. BENEFIT Department of Sociology and Anthropology New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20020 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley. com). record. You only have to look at the range of taxonomic solutions being offered for the last two million years of fossil evidence for human evolutionary history to realize that paleontologists are in need of some sound, unambiguous advice from an expert about how to convert the variation we observe in the fossil record into durable hypotheses about specific diversity. The options for the section on the concept of species were to either comprehensively review all the literature and come out with a distillation of the strengths and weaknesses of all the various proposals, or to “cut to the chase” and provide some brisk, didactic advice about how to do the taxonomy of the primate fossil record. What we have is neither a comprehensive survey, nor any practical advice other than “I employ the phylogenetic species concept for living Primates because there is no alternative, and the composite species concept for fossils, again because there is no alternative.” But exactly how does the author convert Cracraft’s definition of the phylogenetic species concept (PSC) into practical advice? How do you recognize “a parental pattern of ancestry and descent?” As for the composite species concept, just how do you marry “the PSC to the internodal concept?” If this book is to be a practical manual, then examples of how these different concepts would be applied to some real living animals and some real fossils would have been hugely helpful. There is only one diagram, a rendition of the shortest platyrrhine tree, in the whole of the introductory section. To tackle thorny issues like relatedness and species in the absence of any diagrams is a tall order. The vast majority of the text is a detailed speciesby-species treatment of the living primates, and this is where the great value of this book lies. However, even this invaluable resource would have benefited from summary taxonomies for each of the major groups. As it is, if you want to know Groves’ advice about the taxonomy of the living higher primates, you have to read through detailed sections to work out that he advocates recognizing two species each for Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo. He ducks fossil primates altogether, except for a summary classification of the Catarrhini. The glossary is useful, but there are some puzzling omissions such as “hypodigm,” and inconsistencies between the text and the glossary. Also, some statements, such as the assertion that evidence from morphology and molecules converges as the number of characters increases, need more sub- 408 BOOK REVIEWS stantiation, and three paragraphs about the contribution of DNA evidence to taxonomy are probably not enough. This volume is useful, but future editions will be even more useful if they focus on the taxonomy of living primates and abandon much of the preamble. I know it will add to the overall length, but having the full citations of at least the recommended nomina, if not all the redundant synonyms, would greatly add to this book’s value as a resource. I hope Colin Groves will continue to accept the daunting challenge of curating the taxonomy of the living primates. No one is better qualified for the task. BERNARD WOOD Department of Anthropology George Washington University Washington, DC GENETICS AND THE SEARCH FOR MODERN HUMAN ORIGINS. By John H. Relethford. New York: Wiley-Liss. 2001. 252 pp. ISBN 0-471-38413-5. $69.95 (cloth). tell us most about is demography: population size, growth, change, subdivision, and migration. Historical reconstructions must be interpreted in this context. We are burdened by difficult nonidentifiability problems, i.e., equivalently well-fitting explanations based on different plausible values of the requisite demographic parameters. The author presents these carefully, showing (often by simple simulations) some of the interpretive issues. A separate chapter explains and evaluates the Neanderthal DNA data. Nothing is perfect, and there are some limitations in this book. To me, one of these is the absence of historical depth regarding the competing models. Long before genetics came on the scene, essentially the same positions were held, for sociological and other reasons that Loring Brace and others have discussed at length, and the genetic arguments themselves are not very different from what they were 30 years ago. This should give readers pause in the face of today’s sometimes-strident advocacy, because the combatants talk past each other in part because they see through prefocused glasses. Secondly, the genetics are not completely up to date, especially in regard to the diversity of new data, including haplotype analysis, detailed single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) surveys, and genomic analysis of autosomal DNA. The story told by these newer data is essentially the same, but richer in detail. The author may be a bit too casual about curious findings, such as Y and mtDNA reconstructions that suggest dramatically different male and female origins for the same population. I think some fanciful oversimplifications in the literature could be avoided if the participants in the battle introduced more anthropology, e.g., trivia such as an understanding of cultural anthropology or huntergatherer demography. This book tries to put at least some of that back into the picture. More consideration may be due to the role of selection along with demic diffusion as a confounder of drift-based reconstructions. For example, it has long been known that “waves of advance” of advantageous genes could explain much of what we see today, and could distort estimates of origin-times made from drift-based assumptions (Weiss and Maruyama, 1976). Genomic analysis is revealing heter- John Relethford has long weighed in on the problem of reconstructing human origins. He has written balanced treatments in his numerous introductory textbooks, and now has written another, extended treatment of the subject, that should be on your bookshelf. John presents the evidence on human origins, ranging from population genetics to fossils to osteometrics. The contending models for human evolution are presented in depth. The combating forces are the “Out of Africa Replacement” and the “Regional Continuity” models. I think the pugilists have recoined and hyped their theories without appropriate acknowledgment of historically venerable positions, and I feel similarly about the extensive treatment given to “mitochondrial Eve,” to me one of the most damaging publicity stunts of our field. In a marketing age, I guess we’re stuck with pop-sci, but readers can be confident that John’s book is groping for understanding, not publicity. The relevant population genetics theory and data behind these contrasting models are explained with enough mathematics to make the points clear, in a balanced, well-written, smoothly digestible way. Rather than burden the reader with formalism, the author plays to his own strengths, which include cogent simulations that illustrate major points without overstating them. After a brief introduction to genes and population genetics, he examines most of the major topics we need to consider, carefully evaluating what others have said, and presenting analyses of his own. He lays the debate out from the point of view of the fossil evidence, and then the genetic evidence and its interpretation are introduced. He does this initially in the modern sense of sequence-coalescent reconstructions of our most recent common ancestor. The amount and nature of regional genetic variation in our species, and the way this affects historical interpretation and reconstruction, are given extended treatment. The author goes to appropriately great lengths to support his major assertion, that what genetic data DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20021 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley. com). 409 BOOK REVIEWS ogeneity in estimated evolutionary parameters, e.g., mutation and recombination, and selection across the genome. And there is evidence from sequence trees of possible long-standing population subdivision within Africa that was represented in the emigrants. These things could be important. However, these are the reviewer’s quibbles, because John ends by presenting a “mostly out of Africa” scenario that does not rest delicately on any one fact, and appropriately stresses demographic considerations (Fig. 1). His model is based on the changing roles of gene flow and drift occasioned by periods of differential growth, perhaps due to human cultural or biological advance. One might wish to view this compromise between “Killer Apes” and “Good Neighbors” as a gentlemanly cop-out by someone finding himself in no-man’s land. Only time will tell whether the one real truth is such a Golden Proportion. But Relethford’s scenario is an appealing one, based on well-considered reasoning, and literally as this review was being written, Templeton (2002) suggested a similar view. Analyses may need to be developed to test specifically whether partial replacement is more plausible than that today’s pattern is a kind of global projection of African patterns that pre-existed a true replacement diaspora. This is the kind of book anthropology students and professionals should have handy, heavily marked up, for reminders, lectures, and lessons in tempered argument. It sets a refreshing standard of measured dialogue that students should see before being recruited into their advisor’s army. Relethford will leave you thinking, not swearing. The book is welldocumented and clearly explained, the bibliography is good, and a “Notes” section gives clear and helpful explanations of technical, mathematical, or other fine points from which the reader wanting a smooth flow of the main text is spared. In a rapidly moving field the details will age, but the concepts will have some staying power. Because the cost is outrageous, BOOKS RECEIVED Abrahams PH (2001) McMinn’s Interactive Clinical Anatomy, Version 2.0. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. $99.95 (CD-ROM). Donovan TM, and Welden CW (2002) Spreadsheet Excercises in Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. 464 pp. $24.95 (paper). Donovan TM, and Welden CW (2002) Spreadsheet Excercises in Ecology and Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. 556 pp. $24.95 (paper). Groves C (2001) Primate Taxonomy. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 350 pp. $65.00 (cloth). Henneberg M (ed.) (2001) Causes and Effects of Human Variation. Adelaide, Australia: Australasian Society for Human Biology. 164 pp. (paper). Fig. 1. Relethford’s “Mostly Out of Africa” scenario for modern human origins (his Fig. 9.3). especially without color or slick paper, I suggest that all you professors buy a copy for your graduate students. KENNETH M. WEISS Department of Anthropology Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania LITERATURE CITED Templeton A. 2002. Out of Africa again and again. Nature 416: 45–51. Weiss K, Maruyama T. 1976. Archeology, population genetics, and studies of human racial ancestry. Am J Phys Anthropol 44:31– 49. DOI 10.1002/ajpa.10115 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley. com). Hoffecker JF (2002) Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 298 pp. $32.00 (paper). Hoppa RD, and Vaupel JW (eds.) (2002) Paleodemography: Age Distributions from Skeletal Samples. New York: Cambridge University Press. 259 pp. $80.00 (cloth). Pietrusewsky M, and Douglas MT (2002) Ban Chiang, a Prehistoric Village Site in Northeast Thailand, I: The Human Skeletal Remains. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 493 pp. $100.00 (cloth). Prufer OH, Pedde SE, and Meindl RS (eds.) (2001) Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky Prehistory. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. 359 pp. $38.00 (paper). Reynolds PA, and Abrahams PH (2001) McMinn’s Interactive Clinical Anatomy: Head and Neck, Version 2.0. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. $99.95 (CD-ROM).