The problems of the Pliopithecidae as a hylobatid ancestor

Abstract

Various members of the Pliopithecidae (Pliopithecus, Laccopithecus) and the Proconsulidae (Micropithecus, Dendropithecus, Limnoputhecus, Dionysopithecus, and Platdontopithecus) have been proposed as the ancestral hylobatid (gibbon), based largely on small size and simple-cusped, ape-like molars. However, this ignores evidence presented in early anatomical studies of living brachiating primates. All apes and several South American monkeys show structural anatomical adaptations for brachiation. The Pliopithecidae show some ceboid-like features in the hindlimb which suggest that this genus may have been partly suspensory and possibly comparable to spider monkeys, but without a prehensile tail. They were basically arboreal quadrupedal monkeys without any of the brachiator specializations. Large bodied apes add more traits in order to handle great weight. Among the small-bodied brachiators, only the hylobatids possess these large-brachiator traits. Such modifications serve no purpose other than to support a weight greater than 30 kg. The hylobatid gestation time and longevity are also characteristic only of much larger animals. The ancestral gibbon must have been among the large-bodied sivapithecines. This relationship is supported by body size, geography, and biochemical timing (pliopithecids were probably a distinct lineage in the late Oligocene). If a memeber of the Pliopithecidae were the ancestor of extant hylobatids, it would have had to have grown large, became adapted to brachiation, and then grown small again.Laccopithecus has been newly proposed as the ancestral gibbon. If it is not a member of the pliopithecids, with an age of less than 8 mya, then it could be a fossil hylobatid. It would have had to have separated from the Asian great ape line approximately 15 mya, developed full brachiation, and undergone a reduction in body size and dental sexual dimorphism.