Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Fossil North American primate
Topic Started: Apr 20 2016, 07:35 PM (563 Views)
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


North america is the primate-less continent no more!

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/pressroom/2016/04/20/paleontologists-find-first-fossil-monkey-in-north-america-but-how-did-it-get-here/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossAggron
Member Avatar
Formerly Dilophoraptor

I'm pretty sure it's been primate-less since at most 14,500 years ago.

But this is definitely big news, a non-hominid primate actually living in North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


BossAggron
Apr 20 2016, 08:25 PM
I'm pretty sure it's been primate-less since at most 14,500 years ago.

Yeah, but it was for many years assumed that (advanced simian) primates never really made it into north america, this is the first time we actually have evidence that this wasn't the case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heliosphoros
Member Avatar


Well, there were other primates (adapids come to mind), but this is the first haplorrhine (and monkey) to occur in North America.

And an example of an early south american migrant to boot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


heliosphoros
Apr 20 2016, 09:39 PM
Well, there were other primates (adapids come to mind), but this is the first haplorrhine (and monkey) to occur in North America.

like i said

Quote:
 
(advanced simian)


Guess i should've said "Monkey" instead of Primate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
the dark phoenix
Member Avatar
King of wonderlandia

*inb4 crazy bigfoot ancestor theory XD*

This is a very interesting find. But everything in North America(as far as I can tell) is mostly pine cones or something. Was it specialized for grass and insects? I thought monkeys favored fruit and more tropical things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


the dark phoenix
Apr 21 2016, 01:28 AM


This is a very interesting find. But everything in North America(as far as I can tell) is mostly pine cones or something. Was it specialized for grass and insects? I thought monkeys favored fruit and more tropical things.
Neither of tyese statements are correct.

1-North America is home to a wide variety of habitats and ecosystems that range from deserts,swamps and rainforests to its south to tundra to its north, it is definately not "mostly pine cones". You know, Mexico, the southern U.S.A and places like florida and louisiana are part of north america as well.

2-"monkeys" denote a WIDE variety of animals with even more varied diets and habitat preferences, which includes folivores, absolute omnivores specialised on the most diverse kinds of food up to even grazers (Theropithecus gelada says hi.) and mountain dwelling species who feed mostly on tree bark and lychen (The more alpine species on the genus Rhinopithecus, especially roxellana and bieti). These animals inhabit a wide range of habitats as well, from jungle and savannah to snow covered mountains and high altitude grasslands to even mangrove and swamps. Monkeys are by far, some of the most adaptable creatures on the entire planet.

3-North america by the time was very, very different than what it was today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


It really is quite interesting that monkeys were such an uncommon occurance in North America when one consideres that Primates may have originated in the continent.

Which makes me wonder, do we know with certainty Platyrrhines evolved from a common ancestor from Africa? Is there a chance that the group actually split early enough from Catarrhines to have originated in North America?

Sounds really doubtfull, but well it's still quite a significant discovery.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Which makes me wonder, do we know with certainty Platyrrhines evolved from a common ancestor from Africa?


From the time of the Platyrrhini and Catarrhini, to many fossils pointing to similarities between early catarrhines and african primates of the time, its pretty certain that they came from Africa. Now how exactly is the matter of much debate, though the most accepted hypothesis is that they came floating on rafts of vegetation.

Quote:
 
Is there a chance that the group actually split early enough from Catarrhines to have originated in North America?


Again we have a pretty good idea of when the split happened and where (Africa). This new fossil species is if anything, an early migrant on the great faunal interchange. Plus, by the time the two group splits and Platirrhines reached south america, the Panama ishtmus had not yet formed, further strengthening the position that they came not from the northern land bridges, but from Africa.
Edited by Yi Qi, Apr 21 2016, 01:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply