Scientist challenges interpretation of new find, the oldest primate fossil ever discovered

Nature Jan. 1, 2004, Nature ^ | 31 dec 2003 | Greg Borzo

[AdmSmith]

Find opens debate about whether man's earliest ancestors came from Asia and were diurnal or nocturnal

CHICAGO--A skull and jawbones recently found in China is the oldest well-preserved primate fossil ever discovered ? as well as the best evidence of the presence of early primates in Asia. But the fossil raises the tantalizing possibility that remote human ancestors may have originated in Asia and stirs up debate about the nature of early primates.

In the words of Robert D. Martin, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Chicago's Field Museum, "It was once thought that primates originated in North America because that's where the earliest fossils were found initially; but we should be more open-minded. We still do not know the area of origin of the primate lineage that eventually led to humans, and this new find firmly brings Asia into the picture."

Xijun Ni and colleagues describe the fossil as Teilhardina asiatica, a new species of a genus first recognized from Belgium, in the Jan. 1, 2004, issue of Nature. At 28 grams, T. asiatica is smaller than any modern primate, and its size and sharp tooth cusps indicate that it was an insect-eater.

But a "News & Views" commentary in the same issue of Nature by Dr. Martin disagrees with part of the authors' interpretation of their new find.

Based on T. asiatica's small eye sockets relative to skull length, Ni and colleagues maintain that the small predator was diurnal (active during the day). Dr. Martin, on the other hand, says there is no compelling evidence from the fossil to shake the traditional belief that the common ancestor of primates, and early representatives such as members of the genus Teilhardina, were nocturnal (active at night).

"I disagree with the authors on both statistical and biological grounds," Dr. Martin says. "They excluded significant data in their analysis, and they did not adequately account for certain biological features, including the very large opening on the snout for the nerve connecting with the whiskers, which are best developed in nocturnal mammals."

Dispersal and biogeography

The earliest known undoubted primate fossils are about 55-million-years old from sites in North America, Europe ? and now Asia. Scientists had previously classified six of them in the genus Teilhardina. Ni adds T. asiatica to that group, which might therefore be thought to have dispersed throughout the northern continents.

Dr. Martin agrees that the new fossil belongs to the genus Teilhardina, but he argues that only it and T. belgica, found in Europe, belong there because of their shared traits. "The remaining five species previously identified as Teilhardina must, in fact, be from a quite separate genus," he said. "And this means Teilhardina was restricted to Europe and Asia and probably did not disperse all the way to what is now North America."

Dr. Martin's views have wider implications for biogeography, as well. Until recently, scientists believed that direct migration of primates between Asia and Europe around 55 million years ago would not have been possible due to a transcontinental marine barrier that ran from north to south down the middle of Eurasia at the time. Now, the presence of closely related Teilhardina species in China and Belgium adds to mounting evidence that primates and other mammals were able to migrate directly between Europe and Asia 55 million years ago.

In any event, Dr. Martin hails the new fossil as a very significant find. "It provides crucial new information about early primates in Asia that will help us understand the earliest beginnings of the branch that eventually led to human evolution," he said.

[baclava]

This is all pure fantasy...when does the alien genetic manipulation of our gene pool come into the picture?

[Stultis]

That sounds for all the world like a MONKEY, just like every "hominid" skeleton they've come up with so far

Only if you consider something outwardly similar to a shrew, or some other small insectivore, "for all the world like a monkey". More probably, in fact almost certainly, you just don't know what you're typing about.

[metacognative]

Fo'sho! It's a cult. You notice they never use the word "primitive" anymore...and this earliest is stratigraphcally meaningless.

[theFIRMbss]

>This is all pure fantasy...when does the alien genetic manipulation of our gene pool come into the picture?

You know, John Lennon
once said before the Beatles
came to the US,

all the women here
looked like horses. So, maybe
Manson was correct --

maybe MI6
was coordinating the
"British Invasion,"

and maybe splicing
has only been going on
two generations...

[AdmSmith]

Here are some additional information


Figure 1 Primate evolution in outline. This tree incorporates the results of the analysis by Ni et al.1 (see Fig. 3 on page 67; lemuroids are formally known as Adapiformes, and tarsioids as Omomyiformes). Along with Teilhardina belgica, the new species T. asiatica branches away first on the haplorhine side of the tree (T1). By contrast, T. americana (T2) is nested within the other Eocene tarsioids, calling into doubt its place in the genus Teilhardina. (Primate icons drawn by Lucrezia Beerli-Bieler.)

source: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v427/n6969/full/427022a_fs.html

[expat_panama]

That map is a little out of date...  ..Meadowcroft and Topper sites and 15-35,000 year old artifacts at the Monte Verde site

There are dozens of sites similar to that in Clovis New Mexico dated 13,000 years ago, and they all coincide with both younger sites further south, and mass animal extinctions as they go.  Now, it's true that the site that enjoys the strongest credentials is the Meadowcroft shelter, but the oldest radiocarbon dates don't make sense, because the plant and animal species associated with them are species living in Pennsylvania in recent times of mild climates ranter than species expected for the glacial times of 16,000 years ago.  

The problems many archeologists have with Mt Verde is that the date is based on carbon far from the cave, and (once again) the date stands alone.  

Early humans didn't fly by helicopter from Alaska to Meadowcroft and Monte Verde skipping all the landscape in between.  Advocates of pre Clovis settlement suggest that, for thousands or even tens of thousands of years, pre-Clovis humans remained at low population densities or poorly visible archaeologically for unknown reasons unprecedented elsewhere in the world.

Check out 'Guns, Germs, and Steel, pp48-49.

[blam]

Calico: A 200,000-Year_old Site In The Americas

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP - "Don't think so"

[expat_panama]

Calico: A 200,000-Year_old Site In The Americas

Thanks for the heads up on the post, but it follows a pattern.  Seems like every time someone discovers an earliest whatever, some jock wants to make the new record  by 'discovering' an earlier one. 

It's easy.  Some where near the site (dig if you gotta) find some charcoal and date it.  If it ain't a record, keep digging.  Eventually you'll be featured by Peter Jennings and who knows, if you can bad mouth dubya enough the Nobel people will give you cash money.

Sites like Calico and Mt. Verde bring to mind the saying: "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof".  For once I'd really like to see them include a lot more details on their dating procedures in one of these 'earlier than Clovis' press releases.

[blam]

This is the latest Golly Gee article. Be sure to read the linked article. 'Bye Bye Beringia.'(8,000 Year Old Site In Florida)

European DNA Found In 7-8,000 Year Old Skeleton In Florida (Windover)

[jennyp]

Guys, this has nothing to do with the Out of Africa theory of the origins of Homo 1 or 2 million years ago. This has to do with the much earlier origin (several dozen million years ago) of the wider Primate group, to which humans, tarsiers, & everything in between belong.

[PatrickHenry]

I ain't related to no tarsiers!

[PatrickHenry]

[Little Bill]

The Out Of Africa theory posits that we crawled out of Uganda and populated the world, nasty, me bad.

When you look at the evidence, remnant cultures, from the Bushmen to the Abo's in OZ none of this makes much sence. There seems to be a nexus and it ain't Africa.

[The Shootist]

Why is that so tantalizing?

Because inquiring minds want to know.

[VadeRetro]

" Aye-aye, Sir!"

[msdrby]

ping

[Terriergal]

Well I understand why they would want to know origins - but why is Asia so tantalizing - as opposed to anywhere else?

[Terriergal]

I dunno why that would matter. We don't know where "the beginning" was.

[The Shootist]

but why is Asia so tantalizing

I'm not so sure that Asia is anymore important than anywhere else. Perhaps because the find was unique?