New Aegyptopithecus zeuxis Find
Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 15th, 2007
Via a press release from Duke University:
Elwyn Simons with 1966 male skull (left) and much smaller and better preserved new female specimen | Megen Morr
Brain, Size and Gender Surprises in Latest Fossil Tying Humans Humans, Apes and Monkeys
Advanced X-ray technique was a key to findings in Duke-led study
Durham, NC — A surprisingly complete fossil skull of an ancient relative of humans, apes and monkeys bears striking evidence that our remote ancestor was less mentally advanced than expected by about 29 million years ago.
The second and most intact cranium found of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis was identified by Duke University primatologist Elwyn Simons, who is announcing the find this week with several colleagues. Because of the new specimen’s remarkable wholeness, Simons and his colleagues were able to subject it to micro CT scanning, a computerized X-ray technique that can be used to calculate the approximate dimensions of the brain the cranium once encased.
Based on previous fossils collected at the same dig site in a quarry outside Cairo, scientists had hypothesized that this early monkey already would have had a relatively large brain, said Simons, a professor of biological anthropology and anatomy.
But the researchers’ new report, which displays the computer-reconstructed brain as a false-color red mass within the grey skull case, suggests that the species “had a brain that might have been even smaller than that of a modern lemur’s,” Simons said. “This means the big-brained monkeys and apes developed their large brains at a later point in time.” Simons named this creature Aegyptopithecus zeuxis — or “linking Egyptian ape” — after his team found the first skull in 1966.
Simons and his colleagues reported the findings online during the week of May 14 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Leakey Foundation.
Sufficiently tiny to rest in Simons’ palm, the new 29-million-year-old skull is less than half the size of the 1966 skull. Simons said he and his collaborators first thought it might represent a new species.
But having confirmed that the skull is from the same species, the new skull’s strikingly small size suggests the animal may have been mentally robust enough to distinguish the numerous members of a fairly large social group.
After comparing the two skulls, which are of the same age, Simons and his collaborators concluded that the new one came from a female that might have weighed about five and a half pounds, while the first one was from a male of more than twice that size. This size difference between the Aegyptopithecus genders is comparable to that of gorillas, which genetically are humans’ second-closest relatives.
Modern-day primates with significant gender size differences usually form multimale and multifemale troops, he said. “When you are in a large troop, that means maybe 15 or 20 individuals. So if we infer that an Aegyptopithecus had a large social group, that suggests it had enough sense to tell all of those members apart from nonmembers.”
Simons said he originally overestimated Aegyptopithecus’ likely brain size based on the original 1966 skull, which has a bigger snout and pronounced crests, features that he now attributes to its being male.
Aegyptopithecus’ brain is smaller than once thought. “But other features in these skulls, and in many other Aegyptopithecus fossil pieces collected at the Egyptian site over four decades, suggest that this primate was already branching away from its lemurlike ancestry,” he said.
“We also find that the visual cortex was large, which means that like many primates, this species likely had very acute vision,” he said. “So the visual sense, which is regarded as a very important feature of anthropoids, or higher primates, had already expanded.”
The shape of the animal’s eye sockets also suggests Aegyptopithecus was active in the daytime, like modern and ancient higher primates. In contrast, many but not all modern prosimians — the group that includes lemurs — are active at night, he said.
Aegyptopithecus fossils have been found in two quarries separated by about a kilometer within Egypt’s Fayum Depression. Scientific evidence suggests the location, now arid, was a tropical forest 29 million years ago.
Simon’s co-authors include Erik Seiffert, a Duke-trained researcher now at the University of Oxford in England who will soon relocate to Stony Brook University in New York; Timothy Ryan of Pennsylvania State University, who did the micro-CT scanning; and Yousry Attia of the Egyptian Geological Museum in Cairo.
Monday, May 14, 2007
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Interesting find! Thanks for that.
It does underscore how tenuous our understanding of brain size and intelligence is.
He may be your relative, but it’s not mine. Missing link is extremely doubtful on such a paucity of evidence, in any event it makes for a good debate.
Very fascinating article. I wonder how likely it is, though, that the specimen that was whole enough to be CT scanned had such a small brain due to some individual genetic condition?
Mystery Man. That’s an interesting question. What I find interesting is that is comes up so often. It was just a scant year and a half ago that the Indonesian head of the state anthro lab suggested the same thing for the recent hobbit skull(s). I seem to recall, of course, the very first neaderthal skulls found and displayed were presumed to be the skull of a “crimean” (read that as asiatic, i.e.: less intelligent) idiot. Fossils are so rarely created in nature, what reason would there be for nature to favor the fossilization of those with developemental diseases?
It is interesting also that despite the new skull’s being only half the size it was determined to be the same species. I think that reveals that the use of the term “species” is a bit different when we’re discussing fossils of lineages no longer extant.
Loren, I can go along with the significance of the anomlaously large visual cortex in relation to the miniscule brain because supposedly one of the reasons for our larger brains was the need to develop such complexities as enhanced visual acuity, etc..
But what doesn’t make sense to me though is the automatic assumption it’s one of our ancestors.
If in 28 million years from now an advanced race of super intelligent space wombat archaeologists return from the colonies on the moon they used to survive nuclear conflagration on Earth, and they find the skull of a marmoset with a titchy cavity where its brain was, does that mean creatures with larger skulls and larger brain cavities like ours didn’t exist at the same time?
Just a thought.
O, and just to be certain, Loren – you and Craig and everyone else who visits this blog are all super intelligent space wombats like me too, right?
Right?
Every time a skull is discovered it is, apparently, forced to fit into human evolution. Most are found, after intensive study, to fit only into monkeys or apes.
Please, if you are absolutely sure, and if you can absolutely prove the the theory of evolution by your discovery, then can you scientifically show that your discovery fits that man is descended from apes. Until then you have nothing more than a different type of ape skull (at best).
Using the same methodology, man and bigfoot are the same species (or close) by inference and speculation.
I’m saying simply this: prove it. If not, all the theories in the world won’t help but will only muddy the issue.
Dogu4- Right. I also find it interesting that so much confidence can be put into what was found with this skull. I of course don’t think fossilization favors developmental diseases, but it is possible that this particular skull is not necessarily representative of the species as a whole. I find it interesting that based on this one intact sample, it can be assumed that it is an accurate portrayal for the brain size of an entire species. I suppose that the lack of other intact skulls leaves no room for a comparative analysis, but it goes to show how much weight is put on a very limited sampling of the population.
I get what ya mean there, mystery man, and of course I don’t seriously think that you or anyone really thinks fossilization favors the debilitated in any meaningfull way. The entire misunderstanding may be an unintended but unavoidable artifact of the process of expository writing for a mass audience, since it’s not likely the “science writer” (ususally someone who is good in english, likes science stuff, but sucks at math, like me) wants to bog down the reader with details on which the writers themselves barely have a handle and it is part of my personal campaign for greater precision in the public forum on science in general.
I guess in regards to our little ancestral cousin here, having a few more examples will in all likelihood flesh out the story a bit better,and I’m sure we’d all look forward to that.
Dogu4- I see what you mean about what you were saying before. I also think it is interesting that scientists often have assumed that skulls were of individuals with genetic conditions, the “hobbits” you mentioned being a very good example of this. Sometimes, I suppose one could get the feeling that these scientists maybe point to that possibility too much, as if nature DID favor these types of skulls, which is of course not true. Interesting that that possibility wasn’t brought up here, though. I personally think it is something to keep in mind when looking at any sort of specimen where there is only one sample to go on. I look forward to seeing if any others turn up that can be studied and compared.
I am totally with you on greater precision with scientific news offered to the public.