What do you think?
Rate this book
Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Mans Place in Nature
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 6, 2024
A 1972 TEXT SUMMARIZING WHAT WAS THEN KNOWN ABOUT PRIMATE EVOLUTION
Elwyn LaVerne Simons (1930-2016) was an American paleontologist, paleozoologist, and a wildlife conservationist for primates, who taught at Yale University,
He wrote in the Preface to this 1972 book, “Man in his innate curiosity has throughout many ages and cultures often raised the question of the relation of humanity to the natural world… Why are we? Where did we come from? What is our purpose and our future? Paleontological science gives answers to the part of these questions dealing with the history of vertebrate life and eventually of the primates and man. Nevertheless, much of what appears to be a basic human need, that of understanding the place of man in the universe, lies outside the area of descriptive and interpretive science… this book will deal with what happened in the history of the close relatives of man and of man himself. Why this happened remains a matter of individual belief.”
He explains, “In fact, most orders of mammals have both present-day members that are considered ‘primitive’ and those that are thought to be ‘advanced,’ but living forms are not the ancestors or descendants of each other. In consequence, the two latter terms are misleading and almost meaningless. In spite of all this, diagrams are still sometimes drawn as phylogenies and yet contain only living forms. Another misleading element of such diagrams is that they lead to the logical misstep that monkeys were ancestral to apes and that monkeys in turn were derived from tarsiers. We do not have any proof for such steps in primate evolution. It is true that Hominidae was derived from animals that we have to call apes, but beyond this we do not know how the earlier stages should be described.” (Pg. 16)
He observes, “One of the most amusing phenomena in primate evolution is what might be called ‘discoverer’s bias.’ Because of closeness to their own material, paleontologists and paleoanthropologists often lost objectivity and tend to overestimate the value or the taxonomic distinctiveness of the particular finds they make. This often results in the animal’s receiving an unnecessary name or being considered so valuable that it winds up in a safe… One classic example … is the famous jaw and skull fragments of so-called Piltdown Man." (Pg. 52)
He recounts, “Teilhard de Chardin… first described ‘Teilhardina,’ but called it ‘Omomys belgius.’ … Teilhard figured a calcaneum and talus from Oursmael as possibly belonging to Teilhardia beligca. Eh calaneum does resemble that of Hemiacodon, but the talus does not and may not belong to this species. In 1940, Simpson recognized its generic distinction and named it Teilhardina. In 1958, I realized that Simpson and Teilhard had both confused an insectivore ramus with the remaining material of Teilhardina and thus both derived the wrong dental formula… Unfortunately, Teilhard de Chardin created in 1927 a valid senior objective synonym to Teilhardina … where in passing he suggested that Omymys Belgicus could be placed in a new genus Protoomys. A request for suppression of this unused name, which otherwise would have to supplant Teilhardina, has been submitted to the Commission on Nomenclature…” (Pg. 153)
He notes, “Several new questions about Gigantopithecus were raised by the discovery of the three new mandibles with associated animals… The size difference between mandibles ... could have been the result of rather marked sexual dimorphism, or the jaws may represent two different species that lived at different times … Opinions also differed as to the interpretation of associate animals. Were the other bones washed into the caves and fissures where they were found along with those of Gigantopithecus, or are they the remains of prey of carnivores such as hyenas and red dogs? Could Gigantopithecus have been a predator?” (Pg. 255-256)
He concludes, “It is therefore interesting that the few accounts we have of the pygmy chimpanzee in the wild… indicate that one of the most striking things to be noticed about it is the tendency toward terrestrial, bipedal flight with the arms held upward and outward in a manner reminiscent of the siamang. Our forebears could thus have been bipedal from the moment they left the trees!... It should be clear … how enormous is the scope of our uncertainty about the time of appearance of almost all of the basic features that we associate with being human. Perhaps these uncertainties lie at the heart of the well-known controversies that have marked the study of human evolution. There is still no real agreement on the definition of early man, on the first hominids, or on what is to be considered human. Nevertheless, these very uncertainties should serve as a clarion-call to all those interested unravelling the tangled skein of man’s prehistory. Even the times of the most important advances in this story are still unknown. Until now, it has never been such an important or exciting prospect to contribute, perhaps more soberly and more scientifically, to shedding light on the details of man’s still largely unknown past. We stand on the brink of great discoveries.” (Pg. 282)
This book was (when first published) a fine introduction to human evolution.
Elwyn LaVerne Simons (1930-2016) was an American paleontologist, paleozoologist, and a wildlife conservationist for primates, who taught at Yale University,
He wrote in the Preface to this 1972 book, “Man in his innate curiosity has throughout many ages and cultures often raised the question of the relation of humanity to the natural world… Why are we? Where did we come from? What is our purpose and our future? Paleontological science gives answers to the part of these questions dealing with the history of vertebrate life and eventually of the primates and man. Nevertheless, much of what appears to be a basic human need, that of understanding the place of man in the universe, lies outside the area of descriptive and interpretive science… this book will deal with what happened in the history of the close relatives of man and of man himself. Why this happened remains a matter of individual belief.”
He explains, “In fact, most orders of mammals have both present-day members that are considered ‘primitive’ and those that are thought to be ‘advanced,’ but living forms are not the ancestors or descendants of each other. In consequence, the two latter terms are misleading and almost meaningless. In spite of all this, diagrams are still sometimes drawn as phylogenies and yet contain only living forms. Another misleading element of such diagrams is that they lead to the logical misstep that monkeys were ancestral to apes and that monkeys in turn were derived from tarsiers. We do not have any proof for such steps in primate evolution. It is true that Hominidae was derived from animals that we have to call apes, but beyond this we do not know how the earlier stages should be described.” (Pg. 16)
He observes, “One of the most amusing phenomena in primate evolution is what might be called ‘discoverer’s bias.’ Because of closeness to their own material, paleontologists and paleoanthropologists often lost objectivity and tend to overestimate the value or the taxonomic distinctiveness of the particular finds they make. This often results in the animal’s receiving an unnecessary name or being considered so valuable that it winds up in a safe… One classic example … is the famous jaw and skull fragments of so-called Piltdown Man." (Pg. 52)
He recounts, “Teilhard de Chardin… first described ‘Teilhardina,’ but called it ‘Omomys belgius.’ … Teilhard figured a calcaneum and talus from Oursmael as possibly belonging to Teilhardia beligca. Eh calaneum does resemble that of Hemiacodon, but the talus does not and may not belong to this species. In 1940, Simpson recognized its generic distinction and named it Teilhardina. In 1958, I realized that Simpson and Teilhard had both confused an insectivore ramus with the remaining material of Teilhardina and thus both derived the wrong dental formula… Unfortunately, Teilhard de Chardin created in 1927 a valid senior objective synonym to Teilhardina … where in passing he suggested that Omymys Belgicus could be placed in a new genus Protoomys. A request for suppression of this unused name, which otherwise would have to supplant Teilhardina, has been submitted to the Commission on Nomenclature…” (Pg. 153)
He notes, “Several new questions about Gigantopithecus were raised by the discovery of the three new mandibles with associated animals… The size difference between mandibles ... could have been the result of rather marked sexual dimorphism, or the jaws may represent two different species that lived at different times … Opinions also differed as to the interpretation of associate animals. Were the other bones washed into the caves and fissures where they were found along with those of Gigantopithecus, or are they the remains of prey of carnivores such as hyenas and red dogs? Could Gigantopithecus have been a predator?” (Pg. 255-256)
He concludes, “It is therefore interesting that the few accounts we have of the pygmy chimpanzee in the wild… indicate that one of the most striking things to be noticed about it is the tendency toward terrestrial, bipedal flight with the arms held upward and outward in a manner reminiscent of the siamang. Our forebears could thus have been bipedal from the moment they left the trees!... It should be clear … how enormous is the scope of our uncertainty about the time of appearance of almost all of the basic features that we associate with being human. Perhaps these uncertainties lie at the heart of the well-known controversies that have marked the study of human evolution. There is still no real agreement on the definition of early man, on the first hominids, or on what is to be considered human. Nevertheless, these very uncertainties should serve as a clarion-call to all those interested unravelling the tangled skein of man’s prehistory. Even the times of the most important advances in this story are still unknown. Until now, it has never been such an important or exciting prospect to contribute, perhaps more soberly and more scientifically, to shedding light on the details of man’s still largely unknown past. We stand on the brink of great discoveries.” (Pg. 282)
This book was (when first published) a fine introduction to human evolution.
Displaying 1 of 1 review