Primate fossil teeth from these fossil beds in Myanmar suggest our deep primate ancestors arose in Asia. |
By Ann Gibson, Science Now, June 4, 2012
Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the
upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that
lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters
the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted
in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys,
apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous
journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago.
Until 18 years ago, fossils of every suspected early
anthropoid were found in Egypt and dated to about 30 million years ago. Then,
starting in the 1990s, researchers began discovering the remains of petite
primates that lived 37 million to 45 million years ago in China, Myanmar, and
other Asian nations. This suggested that anthropoids may have actually arisen
in Asia and then migrated to Africa a few million years later. But
paleontologists have lacked the fossils to show when and how these anthropoids
trekked from Asia to Africa, says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the
Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
In 2005, Beard and an international team of researchers
sifting fossils of early fish, turtle, and ancestral hippo teeth from fossil
beds near the village of Nyaungpinle in Myanmar found a molar the size of a
kernel of popcorn. The tooth, dated to about 38 million years ago, belonged to
a new species of ancient primate, which would have been the size of a small
chipmunk. After several more years of arduous fieldwork, the team has collected
just four molars of this primitive anthropoid, which they named Afrasia
djijidae. "It's a difficult place to work; it took us 6 years to find four
teeth," says Beard.
The four molars were enough to show Beard and team
leader Jean-Jacques Jaeger of the University of Poitiers in France that Afrasia
was closely related to another primitive anthropoid that
lived at about the same time, but in Africa—Afrotarsius libycus from Libya. When the
researchers examined the teeth from the two primates under a microscope, they
were so similar in size, shape, and age that they could have belonged to the
same species of primate, says Beard. Such close resemblance between an Asian
and African fossil anthropoid has "never been demonstrated
previously," the authors write online today in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
On closer examination, however, the team noticed that
the new molars from the Asian Afrasia were more primitive than those of Afrotarsius
from Libya, particularly in the larger size of a tiny bulge at the back of its
last lower molar. These primitive traits, as well as the greater diversity and
age of early, or "stem," anthropoids in Asia rather than Africa
suggest that this group arose in Asia and migrated
to Africa 37 million to 39 million years ago. "Anthropoids didn't arrive in
Africa until right before we find their fossils in Libya," says Jaeger.
The Out-of-Asia scenario may have been complex. The team
proposes that more than one species of anthropoid migrated from Asia to Africa
at about this time, because there are at least two other types of early
anthropoids alive at about the same time as Afrotarsius in Libya, yet they are
not closely related to Afrotarsius or Afrasia. This may be because once they
got to Africa, they found ideal lush conditions with few carnivores and
underwent a "starburst of evolution," says Beard, rapidly giving rise
to a number of new species.
Others agree that if both the new species of primates
from Myanmar and Libya are indeed early anthropoids, they would greatly
strengthen the case for the Asian origins of anthropoids. "If proven, the
biogeographical significance of these results is profound," says
paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. It
would show that there was a major migration of primates and probably other
mammals between the two continents at a time when it was not easy to get across
the ancient Tethys Sea that divided Africa from Asia. And for humans, it would
suggest that our deepest primate roots were in Asia, not Africa.
Still, the similarity between the species rests on just four
molars of Afrasia, Kay notes, although teeth are the most reliable way to
measure relatedness. And some researchers have yet to be convinced that Afrotarsius
in Libya is a stem anthropoid rather than an ancestor of tarsiers, primates
that are not anthropoids and, thus, are more distant relatives. Kay, however,
says the scales are tipping toward an Asian origin. "We've all heard about
Out-of-Africa for human origins," adds Beard. "Now we think there was
an Out-of-Asia migration into Africa first."
1 comment:
For me, this article touches on a topic that has been ducked, side-stepped and sidelined by the scientific community for years--the Aquatic Ape Theory.
This powerful theory goes much further than any other theory toward explaining why humans are so different from our primate cousins. Not only does it provide a more plausible explanation for our bipedal, upright stature; it also explains our loss of body hair; our more developed brain; our extra body fat and buoyancy (especially at birth); our salt water tear ducts; the swimming and breath-holding reflex of newborn babies (bradycardic response)...and many other critical differences between humans and our closest primate relatives.
Despite its powerful explanatory capacity it is virtually ignored by the scientific community even though each new discovery about the transition from ape to human has strengthened the plausibility of this theory and undermined the rest.
I would like to discuss this theory and its rivals with your readers on this blog. Could you post some of the best articles on this topic?
To open the discussion see: ELAINE MORGAN SAYS WE EVOLVED FROM AQUATIC APES
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html
Post a Comment