PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Cartmill

Publications and source records attributed to M Cartmill.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1996

Ancient single origin for Malagasy primates.

We report new evidence that bears decisively on a long-standing controversy in primate systematics. DNA sequence data for the complete cytochrome b gene, combined with an expanded morphological data set, confirm the results of a previous study and again indicate that all extant Malagasy lemurs originated from a single common ancestor. These results, as well as those from other genetic studies, call for a revision of primate classifications in which the dwarf and mouse lemurs are placed within the Afro-Asian lorisiforms. The phylogenetic results, in agreement with paleocontinental data, indicate an African origin for the common ancestor of lemurs and lorises (the Strepsirrhini). The molecular data further suggest the surprising conclusion that lemurs began evolving independently by the early Eocene at the latest. This indicates that the Malagasy primate lineage is more ancient than generally thought and places the split between the two strepsirrhine lineages well before the appearance of known Eocene fossil primates. We conclude that primate origins were marked by rapid speciation and diversification sometime before the late Paleocene.

Animals↗
PubMed1994

A critique of homology as a morphological concept.

Two sequences of nucleotides are homologous if they are descended through a chain of replication from a common precursor molecule. Since organs are not copies or transcriptions of organs, the concept of morphological homology has no such simple and unambiguous definition. The theoretical vagueness of morphological homology is reflected in its many and inconsistent criteria of identification. Structures may be conventionally deemed homologous even though they are radically dissimilar in form, relationships, or function, or develop via dissimilar ontogenetic processes, or originate from nonhomologous embryological precursors. Hypothesis of homology are conventionally rejected when they are contradicted by known patterns of phylogenetic relationships, even if the structures in question are minutely similar in their form, function, and development. The dependence of interspecific homology on phylogeny is often expressed by saying that two structures are homologous if they are inherited from corresponding structures in a common ancestor. However, this is a circular definition (what counts as a "corresponding" structure is itself a question of homology), and it falsely assumes that structures can be inherited. At bottom, homology is an essentialist concept; two things are homologous only if they are in some essential sense the "same" thing and properly called by the same word. The concept can be made intelligible in an evolutionary context only by giving it a cladistic interpretation that makes homology judgments dependent on the outcome of a phylogenetic analysis. It follows that such judgments cannot play a role in evaluating conflicting phylogenetic hypotheses.

Animals↗
PubMed1983

New Palaeogene primate basicrania and the definition of the order Primates.

The anatomy of the posterior basicranium has been repeatedly invoked in systematic definitions of Primates. One widely cited definition of the order claims that 'all undoubted primates' are distinguished from other mammals by two basicranial specializations: (1) absence of a major vascular foramen on the medial side of the auditory region, and (2) development of the auditory bulla from the petrosal bone. As we show here, specialization (1) does not apply to the paromomyid Ignacius, and is of uncertain incidence in other unquestioned members of suborder Plesiadapiformes (archaic primates from the early Cenozoic of Europe and North America). Specialization (2) cannot be demonstrated without ontogenetic evidence, and all relevant plesiadapiform fossils are adult. In fact, the only plesiadapiform with an arterial pattern remotely resembling that of early primates of modern aspect (or 'euprimates') is the microsyopid Cynodontomys, but it is often regarded as non-primate because it lacks a petrosal bulla. Although plesiadapiforms resemble euprimates in traits of the cheek teeth and postcranium, some other (presumably non-primate) groups possess these traits as well. Since the order Primates is not clearly definable by unique specializations, the best grounds for regarding plesiadapiforms as euprimate antecedents are stratigraphic and phenetic. This fact may be best expressed by systematic arrangements that emphasize adaptive grades rather than unsubstantiated clades.

Animals↗
PubMed1979

The volar skin of primates: its frictional characteristics and their functional significance.

Friction of volar skin on wood is not proportional to load in human beings and prosimians, but to load raised to a fractional power. This meets theoretical expectations for the frictional characteristics of convex elastic surfaces. Although this enables small clawless primates to cling to steeper slopes and larger vertical supports than would otherwise be possible, the magnitude of the effect is not great enough to overcome the disadvantages of clawlessness in climbing vertical or steeply-sloping tree trunks and branches. In human subjects, friction appears to be more nearly proportional to load than in small prosimians used as experimental subjects. It is suggested that this is due to the fact that the small animals have discrete, elevated volar pads. Pad coalescence in large primates may be an adaptation for increasing the power to which load must be raised to become proportional to friction; increasing this exponent yields more friction per unit of adduction force on supports that are small relative to the animals' dimensions and weights.

Animals↗
PubMed1978

An ethmoid exposure (os planum) in the orbit of Indri indri (Primates, Lemuriformes).

In 6 of 17 skulls of Indri indri retaining distinct sutures in the medial orbital wall, a small separate bony element intervenes between the frontal and the maxillolacrimal suture. This element is demonstrably continuous with the ethmoid on one such skull. The occurrence of an ethmoid exposure in the orbit of Indri suggests that this trait is not a simple function of orbital size and convergence. Since such an exposure is found in non-cheirogaleine lemuriforms, its distribution provides no support for the hyothesis that lorises and galagos are derived from cheirogaleines.

Animals↗
PubMed1978

The orbital mosaic in prosimians and the use of variable traits in systematics.

Study of 579 skulls, representing all 33 extant prosimian species and several anthropoids, shows that an orbital exposure of the ethmoid occurs in most Malagasy genera. A palatine-lacrimal contact is normal only in Lemur; the zygomatic-lacrimal contact occurs in most lorisiform species. Lepilemur shows possibly significant resemblances to lorisiforms. The vomer appears in the orbit of some ceboids. Cebids are distinguished by a canal running from the orbital apex through the basicranium. It is argued that skull shape and jaw musculature affect the size and shape of certain orbital-mosaic components. Frequencies of traits, rather than typologically 'normal' traits, may be taken as synpomorphies linking different species cladistically.

Animals↗
PubMed1977

The lorisiform wrist joint and the evolution of "brachiating" adaptations in the hominoidea.

In lorisines (Loris, Nycticebus, Perodicticus, Arctocebus), the tip of the ulna is reduced to the dimensions of a styloid process, a new and more proximal ulnar head is developed, and the pisiform is displaced distally away from its primitive contact with the ulna. In some Nycticebus, intra-articular tissues separate the ulna from the triquetrum. These traits are not seen in other quadrupedal primates, but they are characteristic of extant hominoids. Among hominoids, these features have been interpreted as adaptations to arm-swinging locomotion. Since hominoid-like features of the wrist joint are found in lorisines, but not in New World monkeys that practice arm-swinging locomotion, these features may have been evolved in both lorisines and large hominoids to enhance wrist mobility for cautious arboreal locomotion involving little or no leaping. Most of the other morphological traits characteristic of modern hominoids can be explained as adaptations to cautious quadrupedalism as well as to brachiation, and may have developed for different reasons in different lineages descended from an unspecialized cautious quadruped resembling Alouatta.

Animals↗